Re: [9fans] revision control

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

uriel@cat-v.org wrote:
> See yesterday(1) and history(1).

As Ron said, that's not really sufficient.  You loose a lot with the
dump filesystem; log messages, branching, granularity, etc.  It's an
answer, but not a universally good one.  But, more to the point, snappy
one-liners like the above just smack of elitism and don't convey any
real information.  Just because it's not the fashionable way to do
something in the Plan 9 world doesn't mean it may not be necessary due
to circumstances beyond an individual's control.  Yeah, I've done enough
elitist bitching in my time, too, but ultimately, did anyone benefit?
Not really.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:18:36PM -0700, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> CVS is ok.
> 
> The xen guys use mercurial now, which is written in python, and seems to 
> work well. Could this python system be ported to python on plan 9?

I like Subversion; it's a decent tool and has a textual on-disk
representation reminescent of RCS files.  It appears to be, ``CVS done
right.''  Sure, some things are suboptimal, but on the whole, it's
pleasant enough to work with.  But it requires the Apache runtime,
which I guess would be non-trivial to port (because it's big and
requires more patience than I have).

Personally, I'd like to see ports of unison and subversion to Plan 9.
That'd make me a happy guy.  Of course, I'd also like to have a machine
running Plan 9 again.  That'd also make me a happy guy.  Oh yeah, and
time to mess with it, too.  And time to reply to people who try and
help me out of 9fans (hi, Erik!).  Mainly, it's a time thing.

	- Dan C.