Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64")

[Garrett Cooper]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 24.1.2011 9:13, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Peter Jeremy<peterjeremy at acm.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-Jan-21 20:01:32 +0100, "Simon L. B. Nielsen"<simon at nitro.dk>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should just set the tinderbox up to sync directly of
>>>> cvsup-master instead if that makes it more useful?
>>>
>>> Can cvsup-master still lose atomicity of commits?  I suspect it can,
>>> in which case syncing directly off the SVN master would seem a better
>>> approach.
>
> I think des is working on "svnup" to work directly on the SVN tree.
>
>> I've seen a lot of `self-healing' failures lately w.r.t. cvsup, so I
>> wonder if it's time to look at another solution to this problem as
>> these annoying stability issues don't appear to be going away. What
>> about git?
>
> As long as we're choosing bikeshed colour, I would like to drop "mercurial"
> here :)
>
> Mainly because of this:
>
>> - Higher learning curve.
>
> I found Mercurial to have an easier learning curve and to be something like
> a "DSCM for the users of CVS/SVN".
>
>> - Some slightly annoying nits with stashing local changes when working
>> on separate branches (need to talk to git maintainers).
>
> I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I've also noticed
> git tends to do things the long way around which should be simple. Git's
> also much "lower level".
>
> They both support pretty much the same feature set; here's a cute but dated
> comparison:
>
> http://importantshock.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/git-vs-mercurial/
>
> Hg is/was AFAIK used by Sun.
>
> Anyway, personally, svn is good enough :)

    Ok. Obviously this was just a fleeting thought so let's close the
git topic. I do hope that whatever des has cooking up though can
replace cvsup/csup reliably though, and if CVS would die at least that
would be nice...
Thanks,
-Garrett