Re: [wxlua-users] bzr branch of wxLua on Launchpad

On Jan 18, 2008 6:05 AM, Rob Kendrick <rj...@rj...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 21:00 -0500, John Labenski wrote:
>
> > Sounds like an interesting project. However, I am not sure exactly
> > what people are to do with their branches as I would hope that useful
> > additions and certainly all bug fixes should go back to the main
> > version.
>
> If people fix a bug using it, they can have bzr produce a diff or bundle
> of their changes to send to other bzr users: perhaps even somebody who
> then applies it to the official CVS.
>
> I've set this up as my project will require some (small) changes to
> wxLua that are not applicable or appropriate for other people.  Having a
> bzr branch lets me keep my changes while still benefiting from the
> changes in CVS without a whole lot of manual patch management.

Sounds good.

> > In terms of wxLua going to Subversion, yes, someday. I'm sorry that
> > I'm dragging my feet on it, but I am no expert in CVS, but I can make
> > do. I am suspicious of svn since it appears as though you download the
> > whole repository with a checkout which I see as a waste of disk space
> > and when you grep for things you're inundated with garbage from the
> > old versions.
>
> This is not the case.  A subversion checkout contains no history.  What
> it does do is keep unmodified versions of every versioned-controlled
> file in a .svn directory for doing fast local and off-line diffs without
> having to talk to the server.  This basically means the cost of a
> checkout is very slightly over twice the size of the data stored in it.
>
> (Also, bzr branches (rather than checkouts) do include all the history,
> which is a requirement of its distributed nature - but you can do a
> "lightweight" checkout which is similar to an svn checkout, in that it
> requires you to be connected to make any commits.)
>
> > I guess I could make a script wrapper for grep to avoid
> > the .svn/ dirs. In any case I'm not convinced that svn is any better,
> > except that you can use the http protocol.
>
> Subversion is bags quicker, has atomic commits, can version things more
> than just files, better handling of binary files, more efficient
> server-side storage, finer-grained and more flexible authentication and
> permissions, vastly superior history tracking, cheap branching and is
> still actually being maintained.  And that's just a start.

Ok, I'm convinced.

After the next release I will do it, but first we need to get a
monolithic build working and whatever else there was to do that I've
forgotten.

Regards,
    John