From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17490 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2009 11:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 17482 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2009 11:41:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:41:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9E82F78007; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:41:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INowl3+Wqasl; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:41:16 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4AB8B7D9.8080106@ecoscentric.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:41:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?w5h5dmluZCBIYXJib2U=?= CC: eCos Disuss References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Eclipse support for git X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 Øyvind Harboe wrote on 2009-09-22 09:33: > I think it is important when choosing the next version control > system to think about whether we're getting onto the right > train. > > The support today is important, yes, but what happens > 2-3 years from now? > > I'm confident that git will receive *plenty* of attention from > GUI makers as the user base continues to expand due > to the killer references that git has. > > Eclipse support anyone? > > http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/egit/ > but just as git closes the gap wrt GUI support, hg will close the gap wrt functionality... You cannot make assumptions based on a moving target or what development is likely to occur in one camp without considering the same for the others. Also, just because git is right for linux does not mean it is right for eCos. As for killer app, exactly how much of that functionality will be used by the average Joe? 5%, 10%? And the average full time user? 50%, 60%? From what I can tell wrt git, if Linus wants to do something that git cannot do with a couple of simple commands, Linus just goes and writes another command for that. Not that this is a bad thing, just that for the average Joe it is another command/option that is thrown into the mix. I believe in the KISS principle when it comes to considering the needs of the masses and am not a great fan of feature-bloat. Of course we could always make a political decision and choose bazaar because it is a GNU project. I know of at least one project that was forced to do so by RMS for that very reason... Anyway, the great thing about all of these DRCS systems is that, if there ever is a clear winner, their designs are so similar, migration from one to the other in theory should be very simple. All these systems have export/import functionality for this specific purpose. So if we want to move to a DRCS, I suggest we do it sooner rather than later or wait another year or so to see if there is a new DRCS leader or someone comes up with a MDDRCS (multi-dimensional distributed ...) or new flavour of the month. FWIW, Mercurial already has Eclipse support for a couple of years now: http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/ Finally, dont get me wrong. From my perspective I would like to see the right technical choice being made for a DRCS for eCos, or for anything else added to eCos. If that turns out to be git, then great, I will use it with pleasure. If the technical evaluation comes up with little differences between the choices, the evaluation should then look to usability, documentation, testing, support, usage, etc. In my own evaluation of DRCS, this is where I see differences in many directions. Some favour git, some favour hg. The hard part is deciding which differences really matter, so I am glad I am not the one actually making the final choice. I personally agree with the author of this evaluation's summarising comments: https://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/dvcs-roundup-one-system-rule-them-all-part-2 Namely: If you really want a direct recommendation, it would be thus: download Git and Mercurial, then throw dice. Personally I like the “it just works” approach of Mercurial a bit better, and the fact that it is written in Python. Also for cross-platform projects needing Windows support Mercurial is (at this moment) probably a tiny bit less problematic. If you work in a completely UNIX-centered environment, Git might be the slightly better choice. However, both systems work very well, are stable and very, very fast. So it's a tie, more or less." -- Alex Schuilenburg >>>> Visit us at ESC-Boston http://www.embedded.com/esc/boston <<<< >>>> Sep 22-23 on Stand 226 at Hynes Convention Center, Boston <<<< >>>> Visit us at ESC-UK http://www.embedded.co.uk <<<< >>>> Oct 7-8 on Stand 433 at FIVE ISC, Farnborough <<<< -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss