Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] General speech held by V?\195?\173ctor Mart?\195?\173nez (vicmarcal) and Javier Fernand?\195?\169z (elhoir) at Imagin?\195?\161tica 2009
trunk/press-media/presentations/Imaginatica 2009/reactos_imaginatica.pptx
Could we rather save such files as PPT?
As far as I know, there is currently no loss in information if you save a file as PPT instead of PPTX in PowerPoint 2007. Furthermore, this makes it possible to open and edit such files with older PowerPoint versions or OpenOffice. Additionally, neither the PPTX import nor the ODP export (looking at the other Imaginatica presentation) of OpenOffice seem to work as reliable as the PPT import yet.
Best regards,
Colin
Colin Finck wrote:
trunk/press-media/presentations/Imaginatica 2009/reactos_imaginatica.pptx
Could we rather save such files as PPT?
It is done
As far as I know, there is currently no loss in information if you save a file as PPT instead of PPTX in PowerPoint 2007
There is quite some loss of information
I propose to use git for all ros source as main revision control. Prime Causes is Performance (Speed of Operation) and Small Space Requirements. For more information see http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion http://joshcarter.com/productivity/svn_hg_git_for_home_directory
Best regards, Alexey Komarov.
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
"its support for Windows remains a problem point." - i'm using XP with tortoisegit 0.5.1.0 ( http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/ ) and it works perfectly. Any way, I propose to vote here: http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6744
Zachary Gorden wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Alexey Komarov q4a@bk.ru wrote:
"its support for Windows remains a problem point." - i'm using XP with tortoisegit 0.5.1.0 ( http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/ ) and it works perfectly. Any way, I propose to vote here: http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6744
Zachary Gorden wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
No BLOODY WAY! Git is a pain to use and the tortoise extensions have some serious performance problems when dealing with large repositories. If we are going to DVCS, go to Mercurial, at least that one supports Windows and offers all the same advantages of Git, albeit not at as high of a performance gain as Git because of it being cross platform and not using POSIX features to heavily optimize it. It's still good. In fact, I use Mercurial to check out the latest revisions of ReactOS because SVN has a horrible problem of locking up my computer for hours on end before actually downloading the repository.
Also, even though Git has come a long way, its not quite as easy to use as Mercurial. And if anyone suggest Bazaar, I have one thing to say: Slow Interpreted Performance. It could be better, but it isn't.
If ReactOS's target was UNIX systems, then Git would be okay. But this is a Windows reimplementation. That implies Windows users.
I'm using git on XP with TortoiseGit ( http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/ ) and it's work perfectly. I am not vote to use DVCS. I very like idea to using SHA-1 hash for identify objects (and revisions). I never use Mercurial, but as i know, it also using SHA-1 hash.. Perhaps Mercurial or Bazaar is better, then Git for ros, but i'm sure that, git is much better for ros, than svn.
King InuYasha wrote:
No BLOODY WAY! Git is a pain to use and the tortoise extensions have some serious performance problems when dealing with large repositories. If we are going to DVCS, go to Mercurial, at least that one supports Windows and offers all the same advantages of Git, albeit not at as high of a performance gain as Git because of it being cross platform and not using POSIX features to heavily optimize it. It's still good. In fact, I use Mercurial to check out the latest revisions of ReactOS because SVN has a horrible problem of locking up my computer for hours on end before actually downloading the repository.
Also, even though Git has come a long way, its not quite as easy to use as Mercurial. And if anyone suggest Bazaar, I have one thing to say: Slow Interpreted Performance. It could be better, but it isn't.
If ReactOS's target was UNIX systems, then Git would be okay. But this is a Windows reimplementation. That implies Windows users.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Alexey Komarov q4a@bk.ru wrote:
I'm using git on XP with TortoiseGit ( http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/ ) and it's work perfectly. I am not vote to use DVCS. I very like idea to using SHA-1 hash for identify objects (and revisions). I never use Mercurial, but as i know, it also using SHA-1 hash.. Perhaps Mercurial or Bazaar is better, then Git for ros, but i'm sure that, git is much better for ros, than svn.
King InuYasha wrote:
No BLOODY WAY! Git is a pain to use and the tortoise extensions have some serious performance problems when dealing with large repositories. If we are going to DVCS, go to Mercurial, at least that one supports Windows and offers all the same advantages of Git, albeit not at as high of a performance gain as Git because of it being cross platform and not using POSIX features to heavily optimize it. It's still good. In fact, I use Mercurial to check out the latest revisions of ReactOS because SVN has a horrible problem of locking up my computer for hours on end before actually downloading the repository.
Also, even though Git has come a long way, its not quite as easy to use as Mercurial. And if anyone suggest Bazaar, I have one thing to say: Slow Interpreted Performance. It could be better, but it isn't.
If ReactOS's target was UNIX systems, then Git would be okay. But this is a Windows reimplementation. That implies Windows users.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
If you can only offer TortoiseGit for native use, then I'm not sold. Because of the performance problems I experience with it, and the fact I prefer the command line clients over the Tortoise extensions, Git will never be a choice of mine. I suspect there are others that prefer the command line client over the Tortoise extensions as well.
If you like command line clients - you can use msysgit ( http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ ). Or you have performance problems with it too??
King InuYasha wrote:
If you can only offer TortoiseGit for native use, then I'm not sold. Because of the performance problems I experience with it, and the fact I prefer the command line clients over the Tortoise extensions, Git will never be a choice of mine. I suspect there are others that prefer the command line client over the Tortoise extensions as well.
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:13:47 -0500 Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Have you guys taken a look at Bazaar?
Granted moving to it (or any other DVCS) would likely require that the repository be split so that reactos, rosapps, etc., are all in their own shared repositories, but I think that this is better than pulling everything all at once anyway. You can pull subsets with Subversion, but it's still a pain to mirror that way.
The big players ATM in DVCS are git and Bazaar, though. (And hg, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is also written in Python and so it is just as portable as Bazaar is, though I don't know of terribly many projects using it). If you switched to bzr, you'd get the nice advantage of making it easy for Launchpad to mirror the repositories, and making it easier for people who already use Launchpad and bzr for hosting to contribute. Just a thought.
--- Mike
Bazaar is a toy, I'm surprised you've "never heard" of anyone using hg...
Also, see http://bitbucket.org/
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Michael B. Trausch mike@trausch.us wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:13:47 -0500 Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Have you guys taken a look at Bazaar?
Granted moving to it (or any other DVCS) would likely require that the repository be split so that reactos, rosapps, etc., are all in their own shared repositories, but I think that this is better than pulling everything all at once anyway. You can pull subsets with Subversion, but it's still a pain to mirror that way.
The big players ATM in DVCS are git and Bazaar, though. (And hg, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is also written in Python and so it is just as portable as Bazaar is, though I don't know of terribly many projects using it). If you switched to bzr, you'd get the nice advantage of making it easy for Launchpad to mirror the repositories, and making it easier for people who already use Launchpad and bzr for hosting to contribute. Just a thought.
--- Mike
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:18:15 -0700 Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Michael B. Trausch mike@trausch.us wrote:
The big players ATM in DVCS are git and Bazaar, though. (And hg, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is also written in Python and so it is just as portable as Bazaar is, though I don't know of terribly many projects using it). If you switched to bzr, you'd
Bazaar is a toy, I'm surprised you've "never heard" of anyone using hg...
Not sure why you thought I'd said that. Sun uses it (as well as Bazaar), and the Mozilla project uses it. That doesn't count for terribly many projects. Most that I know of are actually using git or Bazaar, or looking at both as options in planned migrations from their centralized VCSs.
It's also largely command-line compatible with svn, which is what I used to use for all of my projects, and some of my clients still do. It can also work with a Subversion checkout directly, though I do not use it in this manner; I do use it as a client to Subversion servers though. Of my clients that have migrated from using Subversion to Bazaar, I can say that they have been happy with the additional flexibility that they've been able to gain from it, and there is very little of a learning curve.
For a "toy", it's about the most friendly tool I've come across. The CLI feels very natural (especially coming from a background with svn) and that includes its branching model. It does its job well and stays out of the way, which is what I think any good VCS tool should do. I wouldn't say that its performance matches git's, but it's nowhere close to what I would call "bad", either. Monotone wins that award by a mile, at least in my recallable experience.
That said, it was just a suggestion. Bazaar is hardly a toy, though. I'd recommend spending some time checking it out and working with it before making such a harsh accusation against it. I've no complaints in performance or ease of use/ease of learning. Indeed, I cannot say that I have any at all, other than there are still too many open projects that aren't using any form of DVCS at all. ;-)
--- Mike
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michael B. Trausch mike@trausch.uswrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:13:47 -0500 Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Have you guys taken a look at Bazaar?
Granted moving to it (or any other DVCS) would likely require that the repository be split so that reactos, rosapps, etc., are all in their own shared repositories, but I think that this is better than pulling everything all at once anyway. You can pull subsets with Subversion, but it's still a pain to mirror that way.
The big players ATM in DVCS are git and Bazaar, though. (And hg, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is also written in Python and so it is just as portable as Bazaar is, though I don't know of terribly many projects using it). If you switched to bzr, you'd get the nice advantage of making it easy for Launchpad to mirror the repositories, and making it easier for people who already use Launchpad and bzr for hosting to contribute. Just a thought.
--- Mike
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Aside from Launchpad, not many people actually like using Bazaar because it has the worst performance of the three by far. So far, people have recommended like so:
Git - need to be extremely tech savvy, willing to work mostly if not only in POSIX-based systems, worst documentation of the three Mercurial - more complete docs, so easier to learn, cross-platform, has good performance with mix of C and Python Bazaar - extremely cross platform, very slow compared to Mercurial and Git, sparsely documented, or out of date documentation, slightly strange in syntax, recommended for very small projects where performance won't matter too much.
That was the advice I got when I was figuring out a DVCS to use for the Enano CMS Project. Based on that, it was rather easy to throw out Git and Bazaar.
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:23:02 -0500 King InuYasha ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from Launchpad, not many people actually like using Bazaar because it has the worst performance of the three by far.
The performance argument is a quite old one. I certainly wouldn't say that current bzr is as fast as current git, but I can't say that I've ever run into any barriers performance-wise with it either. Working with the MySQL source tree is fairly easy and not at all slow, at least on my system.
So far, people have recommended like so:
Git - need to be extremely tech savvy, willing to work mostly if not only in POSIX-based systems, worst documentation of the three
It's documentation isn't bad. There are man pages for every sub-command of git that I've ever had need to use, though there are many sub-commands that I have never even looked at (haven't had the need). I've only ever used it to prepare patches for projects that use it, though, and its branching model is a bit inflexible for at least the workflows that I use without wasting tons of disk space.
Mercurial - more complete docs, so easier to learn, cross-platform, has good performance with mix of C and Python
At least when I had looked at it, the documentation was pretty confusing. Admittedly, though, that was a long time ago when I was comparing bzr, git, hg, and mtn to determine what I wanted to switch to from svn.
Bazaar - extremely cross platform, very slow compared to Mercurial and Git, sparsely documented, or out of date documentation, slightly strange in syntax, recommended for very small projects where performance won't matter too much.
At least since I've used it, the docs have always been more than sufficient. More importantly, I've only ever had to reference the documentation once or twice---the feel of bzr is pretty intuitive coming from Subversion, and I've never had a problem with performance. I frequently use it against Subversion servers, as there are a great many of those in the areas I work with. Using it with MySQL, Mono, and MonoDevelop, I've not had any complaints on performance, either.
That was the advice I got when I was figuring out a DVCS to use for the Enano CMS Project. Based on that, it was rather easy to throw out Git and Bazaar.
It would be. I can say that when I checked out the four I listed, it was a pretty close decision between git and bzr. Bazaar wound up winning out because my clients used Subversion (many of them have migrated to Bazaar internally for various reasons) and working with the Subversion workflow, as well as other less centralized workflows, was quite easy, and the branching model was rather enjoyable, IMHO. Had Bazaar not existed at the time, I would've chosen git, more likely than not. It is more difficult to work with, IMHO, but it was still the only other option that stood out as viable to me.
A note; I'd checked all of these projects out in mid-2006 or so. A good lot has changed in both bzr and git in the last 3 years, so I'd seriously try them all before making a decision. The only one that I know of that I would _still_ stay away from is mtn, but only because the cost of cloning is completely terrible and the CL interface is harder (at least for me) to grasp than git's.
--- Mike
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Michael B. Trausch mike@trausch.us wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:23:02 -0500 King InuYasha ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from Launchpad, not many people actually like using Bazaar because it has the worst performance of the three by far.
The performance argument is a quite old one. I certainly wouldn't say that current bzr is as fast as current git, but I can't say that I've ever run into any barriers performance-wise with it either. Working with the MySQL source tree is fairly easy and not at all slow, at least on my system.
I tried out bzr just last night when I was downloading source code from launchpad and I see that you are right, it isn't that bad now. It's still slower than both Mercurial and Git, but it isn't horribly slow anymore.
So far, people have recommended like so:
Git - need to be extremely tech savvy, willing to work mostly if not only in POSIX-based systems, worst documentation of the three
It's documentation isn't bad. There are man pages for every sub-command of git that I've ever had need to use, though there are many sub-commands that I have never even looked at (haven't had the need). I've only ever used it to prepare patches for projects that use it, though, and its branching model is a bit inflexible for at least the workflows that I use without wasting tons of disk space.
Man pages, while easy to access and are generally good for finding out what commands do what, are not a good example of good documentation. In most cases, man pages do not provide examples or rationales that prove one way or another. To substitute man pages for good documentation is a poor choice for most people.
Mercurial - more complete docs, so easier to learn, cross-platform, has good performance with mix of C and Python
At least when I had looked at it, the documentation was pretty confusing. Admittedly, though, that was a long time ago when I was comparing bzr, git, hg, and mtn to determine what I wanted to switch to from svn.
I will admit that awhile ago, Mercurial's docs were confusing, but they seem to have cleaned up their act since then. On the main page you can find links to a full fledged book, quick start and reference guides in PDF and HTML form, and pages of info on migrating from one VCS to another.
Bazaar - extremely cross platform, very slow compared to Mercurial and Git, sparsely documented, or out of date documentation, slightly strange in syntax, recommended for very small projects where performance won't matter too much.
At least since I've used it, the docs have always been more than sufficient. More importantly, I've only ever had to reference the documentation once or twice---the feel of bzr is pretty intuitive coming from Subversion, and I've never had a problem with performance. I frequently use it against Subversion servers, as there are a great many of those in the areas I work with. Using it with MySQL, Mono, and MonoDevelop, I've not had any complaints on performance, either.
A quick look at the Bazaar website shows that they have added some more docs and reorganized the ones they did have before, so it is at least on par with Mercurial. Frankly, I was surprised it was as bad as it used to be, considering Canonical uses Bazaar for Launchpad, and Canonical makes it its mission to make "open source for human beings." I believe one of the aims of Bazaar was to make it easy for people coming from subversion to use, so they tried to adapt SVN's command style for Bazaar. I don't really have a problem with that, but SVN is slightly strange to me, and CVS is just horrible; so I still agree with the advice I was given on that point.
That was the advice I got when I was figuring out a DVCS to use for the Enano CMS Project. Based on that, it was rather easy to throw out Git and Bazaar.
It would be. I can say that when I checked out the four I listed, it was a pretty close decision between git and bzr. Bazaar wound up winning out because my clients used Subversion (many of them have migrated to Bazaar internally for various reasons) and working with the Subversion workflow, as well as other less centralized workflows, was quite easy, and the branching model was rather enjoyable, IMHO. Had Bazaar not existed at the time, I would've chosen git, more likely than not. It is more difficult to work with, IMHO, but it was still the only other option that stood out as viable to me.
I wouldn't be too unhappy with Bazaar, if things have truly improved since I tried them out, but I still think Mercurial is a better choice. But, your rationale is sound, and based on your needs, Bazaar was probably the best choice.
A note; I'd checked all of these projects out in mid-2006 or so. A good lot has changed in both bzr and git in the last 3 years, so I'd seriously try them all before making a decision. The only one that I know of that I would _still_ stay away from is mtn, but only because the cost of cloning is completely terrible and the CL interface is harder (at least for me) to grasp than git's.
--- Mike
Two things:
1) Bazaar-NG (the current Bzr) was not announced until 2007, and did not have a release until Dec. 14, 2007. Still, Bazaar did exist in 2005 and 2006, and it was shortened to Baz I believe. And, Bazaar had to be good enough for the GNU Project to bring it under its umbrella, so I'm not discounting it totally.
2) Git is still a pain to deal with. I don't like using Git because of its strange and redundant commands, it just doesn't make sense to me. Plus, ReactOS is a Win32 project, and no matter how much people would like it to be otherwise, it means Git cannot be a primary VCS for ReactOS until they come out with a fully native client with performance similar to the UNIX one, without going through a POSIX layer to mess stuff up. Nobody wants to install a full blown POSIX system on top of Windows unless they absolutely have to.
In conclusion, I believe the only suitable DVCSes would be either Bazaar or Mercurial. But I would much rather see Mercurial than Bazaar :)
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michael B. Trausch mike@trausch.uswrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:13:47 -0500 Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Have you guys taken a look at Bazaar?
Granted moving to it (or any other DVCS) would likely require that the repository be split so that reactos, rosapps, etc., are all in their own shared repositories, but I think that this is better than pulling everything all at once anyway. You can pull subsets with Subversion, but it's still a pain to mirror that way.
The big players ATM in DVCS are git and Bazaar, though. (And hg, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is also written in Python and so it is just as portable as Bazaar is, though I don't know of terribly many projects using it). If you switched to bzr, you'd get the nice advantage of making it easy for Launchpad to mirror the repositories, and making it easier for people who already use Launchpad and bzr for hosting to contribute. Just a thought.
--- Mike
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Additionally, SourceForge supports all three anyway, so it could be mirrored easily through SF.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.comwrote:
This was discussed amongst the developers. A fair portion objected, and rather strongly at that. I happen to be one of them. Its "performance" is oversold and its support for Windows remains a problem point. And with the new branching features in SVN, the one advantage git does hold that's worth anything to us may well be disappearing.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I think you have something misunderstood: the branching features aren't what is necessarily an advantage - it is in the features for merging branches where Git has an advantage. Unless it has anything to do with helping with merging, what you are referring to with the new branching features in SVN is irrelevant.
One thing that helps with merging in Git is that you can easily keep a branch up-to-date with the latest changes from the main branch.
-
Alex Ionescu -
Alexey Komarov -
Colin Finck -
King InuYasha -
KJK::Hyperion -
Michael B. Trausch -
ShadowFlare -
Zachary Gorden