[Openmcl-devel] About Contribs
Robert P. Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Mon Sep 14 14:54:37 UTC 2009
I'm glad that someone said this.
There are some very compelling arguments for git adoption, but it's a much
more complex animal -- at least for the user (as opposed to the admin) --
If you must have git, then so be it. But if subversion is enough then I'd
urge you to stick with it.
Robert P. Goldman
Principal Scientist, SIFT, LLC
...... Original Message .......
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:17:36 -0600 "Alexander Repenning"
<ralex at cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Ron Garret wrote:
>SVN is the natural choice
>since CCL itself is hosted on SVN, but the world at large seems to be
>abandoning SVN in favor of Git and/or Mercurial. The last time I
>checked (which was a while ago) SVN didn't do proper branch merging,
>which is a show-stopper as far as I'm concerned. But maybe they've
>Not really fixed. You have to do some semi manual merge. However, SVN is
not at all on the way out. A couple of discussions may make it sound is if
that were the case. Recently somebody actually produced some data regarding
the use of versioning systems. SVN is still gaining share, and gaining
faster than GIT and others combined. The World at large is essentially just
now dropping CVS for SNV. Statistically speaking GIT is barely showing up
on the stats.
>Even if there were a GIT client with an actual user interface (I confess I
am not much of a command line person) I would still vote for using SVN. GIT
is likey to a be dangerous de-cohesiving tool in the hands of Lisp
programmers. Take an already small community, realize few lisp programmers
ever agree on things and before you know it you have more unsupported
flavors of CCL than Linux distros.
>Prof. Alexander Repenning
>University of Colorado
>Computer Science Department
>Boulder, CO 80309-430
>Openmcl-devel mailing list
>Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
More information about the Openmcl-devel