Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Subversion definitely looks cool. I also liked the look of arch [regexps.com], and there's even a re-write of arch in Perl! My biggest issue though with arch is that the use of shell scripts kind of ties it to unix platforms (or cygwin, but that doesn't count).

    What I'm really interested to know about svn is how long it will take for supplemental tools to catch up. By that I mean things like cervisia, WinCVS, etc. I doubt very much I could persuade people here to use it unless it had those sorts of tools, being very much
    • I also liked the look of arch

      Cool, I'll take a look and see if it copes with lots of perl sources next.

      My biggest issue though with arch is that the use of shell scripts kind of ties it to unix platforms (or cygwin, but that doesn't count).

      Well legend[0] has it that CVS was once just a collection of scripts around RCS which later got rewritten as an application. Since there's already a rewrite afoot there's nothing explictily stopping this happening to arch, apart from maybe the all-crushing populari

      • Between changesets and decent branching, I plan to jump ship to Subversion as soon as humanly possible.

        I'd love to try BitKeeper, but I try to be a stickler for actual freedom in software licenses so I've been ignoring it, despite the fact that it seems more sophisticated than anything else out there.

        arch scares me, precisely cause it's a giant collection of shell scripts.
        • by jdavidb (1361) on 2002.04.23 12:02 (#7387) Homepage Journal

          I've been watching subversion since it was only a few months old. (The worst thing in the world was tigris.org screwed up the mailing list archives where you can't read recent messages conveniently. I won't subscribe -- I've been subscribed to a firehose (P6) before.) Just as soon as 1.0 is out, I'm there.

          Arch is new to me. I like the principle, and it's got one killer feature (IMO) subversion is putting off until 1.x: distributed branches. i.e., if the Perl 6 source code is in a repository I can create a private branch in my own repository which will treat the official repository as the trunk, and done (hopefully) in such a way that if the official repository some day decides to import my branch it can be done seamlessly.

          I've got the same license qualms as you about bk. I still use proprietary software, but I don't see the need to add much more of it to what I have. MacOSX someday, and a couple of games, but that's it. Everything else I want libre, or not at all. I'm one of those bad guys who's a little peeved the flagship of free software, the Linux kernel, is using a proprietary source management system. I've read everything the author has to say on the subject, and I can't be reasoned with. :)

          I'm not too scared of the shell scripts, because I don't expect that to be permanent. I wouldn't move to it before it's ported out of sh, though. The perl port Matt mentioned sounds hopeful.

          All in all, I prefer subversion because its stated goal is to supercede CVS. I already think like CVS, and don't really want to have to change my thinking too fundamentally. hysterical reasons and all, you know. BTW, Karl Fogel, author of the Coriolis CVS book (a must have for your library, until subversion takes over), is one of the primary subversion authors.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • No sooner do I post this than I find out that Linux can't use bk patches [zork.net]. Chortle.

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • Yeah, I too think that using BK for the Linux tree is lame. Not much I can do about it since I'm not Linus. Linus is simply one in a long line of technically astute geeks who seems to think that politics are something separate from what they do, despite the fact that it gets shoved in our faces every day (DMCA!) that this is not true.

            A Perl port of arch would be encouraging.

            I like that Subversion is just CVS++ as well, since that's pretty much all I've used except for a brief period of using RCS (ARGH!)
            • Don't knock RCS too much. It was great in its day. I've still got a few things lying around in it; I actually touched one of them this morning. You know, I actually have the O'Reilly RCS book, and it is one of my favorites.

              I think RCS was used as the basis for some commercial tools, too. Sometimes it shows.

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • The biggest thing I think arch has going against it is its use of ftp as the wire protocol. If they'd have used sftp I'd be much more interested. Though perhaps that's just a matter of changing a few lines in the shell scripts ;-)
            • Erk! I think I knew that in the past, but had forgotten. We might as well just use Expect, telnet, and uuencode. We might as well just post all of our passwords here for public view.

              Why is the world so quick to jump all over "security holes" in operating systems, but so slow to throw out these ancient, broken, insecure protocols?

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers