similar to: [LLVMdev] Any Mercurial or Bazaar mirrors available?

Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes: > On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> Having a private branch would be handy for some experiments I'm >> doing. Two years ago there was an announcement by Owen Anderson, but >> the repo seems down now. > > I haven't maintained that for a long time. I think there are some > community members

Having a private branch would be handy for some experiments I'm doing. Two years ago there was an announcement by Owen Anderson, but the repo seems down now. -- Oscar

On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Having a private branch would be handy for some experiments I'm > doing. Two years ago there was an announcement by Owen Anderson, but > the > repo seems down now. > > -- > Oscar > I haven't maintained that for a long time. I think there are some community members who use git mirrors, though. --Owen

I've been using git-svn successfully as a distributed front-end for Subversion repositories. You get a complete, local Git repository from where you can commit and update to/from Subversion. It works quite well, actually. Native Windows is entirely unsupported by Git at the moment, but I hear it works well under Cygwin. - Simon 2008/7/27 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>: > Owen

Hi, Just wondering whether anyone had thought about moving the R sources to a "distributed" version control system such as Bazaar, Git or Mercurial. These new generation systems make it easier to work on feature branches, allow working offline, are very fast, etc. Some projects that have moved to Git are Linux Kernel Perl Ruby on Rails ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)

Gabor As someone trying to the rest of my team using Subversion (which I have used for a while, but more as a backup / record of changes), have you a neat / automated way of building a package from a subversion repository? Thanks David Jessop -------------------------- David Jessop Global Head of Quantitative Research UBS Investment Research +44 20 7567 9882 ----- Original Message -----

Hi Chris, > 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't > hampered by lack of atomic commits, renames, and better branch > facilities). If people would like to see the logical `patch set' that made up a CVS commit then cvsps may be useful, or, as others have said, use Tailor to convert to a local repos. in your preferred format.

Hi, Oscar > at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list > inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename a > .cpp file. Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding directory? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Bill Wendling wrote: > Perhaps someone could come up with a list of different versioning > software, list the pros and cons, and then we could vote? (Has anyone > mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-) There are a couple reasons we are using CVS still: 1. CVS works and is well understood by all involved. 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't

Time ago when the svn server was crawling due to massive hammering from people mirroring the repo, someone said that after the 2.6 release we could discuss creating official mirrors for those who work with svn clients based on distributed VCSs such as git and bazaar. Such mirrors increase productivity (facilitating experimentation and parallel tasks, allowing off-line work) and even lessens the

On Oct 28, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Time ago when the svn server was crawling due to massive hammering > from > people mirroring the repo, someone said that after the 2.6 release we > could discuss creating official mirrors for those who work with svn > clients based on distributed VCSs such as git and bazaar. > > Such mirrors increase productivity

Hello, > If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another > version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I > can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just > ask me what you need. This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider using current svn top of tree, not 2.3 release. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

Mercurial(hg) Cheatsheet for Xen ================================ Written by Andrew Warfield, extended by Michael Fetterman and Ian Pratt June 29, 2005, extended by Grzegorz Milos 04 July 2005. Overview -------- The Xen project has moved from BitKeeper to Mercurial for source control. This note aims to provide a quick guide to getting up and running with the new tools as quickly as possible,

Hi, all, This isn''t about rspec, but this list has people whose opinions I respect. So, I''m looking for a new version control system for my local development. I was going to install subversion, but I''ve heard rumors of people using some newer ones. Thoughts? I''d like to be able to run it either locally or on a home server. If I run it off a home server, then

2008/9/21 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: > Hello, > >> If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another >> version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I >> can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just >> ask me what you need. > This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider

David, > So I want to pose the question. Should we consider git instead > of SVN? The main reason against git is very poor support of windows. Have you tried mercurial in comparison with git? PS: Maybe it's worth to use recently launched wiki for sharing such experience? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State

Hello all, I wish to learn a version control system for managing my R (data analysis) projects. I know of SVN and github, and wonder if there is any reason for which I should prefer the one over the other (or any other platform). An example for a reason could be if it will make it easier for me to later work with R-forge or CRAN or any other platform for R code distribution. Thanks, Tal

I've been meaning to switch away from CVS for a few years now, but I was never sure what I wanted to switch to, so I kept delaying it. I finally decided yesterday that Mercurial is pretty nice. The Mercurial repository is available from http://hg.dovecot.org/ (has a nice web interface). I wrote a small Mercurial mini-howto below. I'm not a Mercurial expert yet, so if you know better ways

I've been meaning to switch away from CVS for a few years now, but I was never sure what I wanted to switch to, so I kept delaying it. I finally decided yesterday that Mercurial is pretty nice. The Mercurial repository is available from http://hg.dovecot.org/ (has a nice web interface). I wrote a small Mercurial mini-howto below. I'm not a Mercurial expert yet, so if you know better ways

Due to a current need to have a git mirror for LLVM, I'm resurrecting this old thread. I'm aware that there exist already LLVM git mirrors at git://repo.or.cz/llvm.git and git://github.com/earl/llvm-mirror.git However, these repositories only mirror the current SVN trunk and do no provide any branch and tag information, which would be very convenient for creating experimental branches