From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: It's not yet time to anoint git, or anything else Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:24:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20080102132458.387D9830B03@snark.thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199280294 16447 80.91.229.12 (2 Jan 2008 13:24:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:24:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 02 14:25:13 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JA3ap-0003qa-Ml for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:25:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA3aT-0007ha-83 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:24:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JA3aQ-0007hP-2Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:24:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JA3aP-0007gS-38 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:24:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA3aO-0007gP-VN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:24:45 -0500 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5] helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JA3aO-0003ov-PH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:24:44 -0500 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 23) id 387D9830B03; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:24:58 -0500 (EST) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:85893 Archived-At: I'm glad there is active discussion of distributed VCSes happening on the list, as I strongly believe we should move to one in the near future. But I think it's worth noting that pretty much all the good things being said about git apply equally to other DVCSes such as Mercurial, bzr, monotone, darcs, and Codeville. All of these have very similar basic models based on commit-before-merge and push/pull operations. It is not yet time to anoint git (or anything else) as a winner, even by implication. We will need to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems in relation to the specific needs of the Emacs project. I am working on an in-depth technical survey of this space. You can pull it at from a Mercurial repo at . As that indicates, I am leaning towards Mercurial for my own work -- but I intend to do a lot of research and testing before making a final decision, and the results of my research will go into that paper. So far, I have done comparative evaluations of SCCS, RCS, CVS, Subversion, Arch, and Monotone. I intend to do similar ones of SVK, git, bzr, darcs, Mercurial, and Codeville. If I can get an evaluation copy I will do Bitkeeper as well -- yes, it has a closed--source license and there is thus no way I would recommend it, but it is of some historical importance. I also intend to write a test suite that will exercises all of these in some known problem areas, especially near renames. If I can come up with any way to do meaningful benchmarks, I will do that too. So far, the only conclusion I am prepared to assert is that monotone, darcs, and Codeville are not at present production-quality tools. I am surveying them anyway because they have some important ideas in them, and it is possible that they might become production-quality tools in the future. This leaves git, bzr, and Mercurial as near-term candidates for production use from among the DVCSes. All three have strikingly similar functional models, though git is perhaps a bit more distant from Mercurial and bzr than the latter two are from each other. When my survey is done, we'll be in an extremely strong position to make a selection based on hard facts and rigorous comparative analysis. Until then, it's not time to choose among them or get too attached to any particular one. (I would, by the way, welcome collaborators and reviewers to help finish the survey. It's a large job. More hands would help.) -- Eric S. Raymond "Say what you like about my bloody murderous government," I says, "but don't insult me poor bleedin' country." -- Edward Abbey