similar to: Community Feedback: Git Repository for R-Devel

This question has been discussed before on this list: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Why-R-project-source-code-is-not-on-Github-td4695779.html See especially Jeroen's answer. Best, Mark Op do 4 jan. 2018 om 01:11 schreef Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at gmail.com>: > UNBIASED FACTS: > ? Bugzilla & R-devel Mailing Lists: Remain unchanged: Understood as > Ticketing platforms

I attach a basic State of Art: ########################################################################################################################################## # State of Art Analysis of Git vs SVN ########################################################################################################################################## Scopus Keywords: GIT AND SVN

On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> Of course, if you've used SVN extensively, you've been trained to think >> that history has to be somewhat linear, and perhaps even that the trunk >> branch is the only one needing QA attention. Migration from SVN to Git >> is hard because you have to change the mental model, not just command >> names and

> After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for the > *project*, > but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel. > > Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, to maintain the "mainline". The git workflow works really really great, but it does require getting rid of mainline thinking. It doesn't exist.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 01:02:10AM +0200, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > One thing that I wanted to see (and probably missed, because I didn't > read all the thread) is to discuss the workflow. I'm under the > impression that not all regular LLVM developers understand the > implications for the LLVM community of migrating from a central VCS to a > distributed one, on terms of

On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Bob Wilson wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:33 PM, fly language wrote: > >> >> After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for the *project*, >> but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel. >> >> >> Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, to maintain the

fly language <flylanguage at gmail.com> writes: >> After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for the >> *project*, >> but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel. >> >> > Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, to > maintain the "mainline". > > The git workflow works really

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

Recently, I've been working on tools for doing high-quality conversions of project histories from centralized version-control systems like Subversion to modern decentralized systems like git and hg. To see what I mean by "high quality", take a look at my DVCS migration guide: <http://www.catb.org/esr/dvcs-migration-guide.html>. A really good conversion should, for example,

Thank you everyone for your participation. A few flaws in my poll: 1) Favoring Git: Subversion supporters are more likely to be split between the last two options. 2) Favoring SVN: Timing of the poll went from Friday night to Monday morning, which probably favored the open source community to 9-to-5ers on private forks. 3) Favoring radicals: Too easy to cheat. Requiring a login or email address

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Incremental development is probably promoted by DVCS far more than > others. Your comment seems to imply that only the tip of each push is > important. In the Git world, it usually isn't. Pushing a 100K patch is a 100K patch, whether it is done in one chunk or 100 smaller incrementell patches. Just because review for the

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> writes: > You know, this is exactly the crux of this whole "move to git" thread. > It is the very same problem of every other VCS migration I have seen (or > dealt with). The core issue here is that you are effectively telling us > that the current workflow is not supported by Git. It is supported, but if you want to

However, and hope not to be off-topic, a git repository (github, gitlab, codeplex, etc., not just solely github) could constitute a tidy approach, and make things easier to R Core :) By putting the focus on version control, the line of changes made with each commit (With the possibility to reverse changes), and not verbose e-mails. Juan I strongly disagree. Are you aware that github is a

On 26 December 2017 at 00:00, Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm new, and forgive my ignorance, but maybe in the future (~ X years > from now) the R Project could be managed entirely from github, by doing I strongly disagree. Are you aware that github is a commercial company, github inc. [1] ? What about gitlab? or Microsoft's codeplex? There are other

On Jul 23, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >> I really do appreciate distributed VCS, but only as staging. >> Incremental development is crucial for the project and "take this git >> push with 100K of code" will never be acceptable. > > Incremental development is probably promoted by DVCS far

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > I really do appreciate distributed VCS, but only as staging. > Incremental development is crucial for the project and "take this git > push with 100K of code" will never be acceptable. Incremental development is probably promoted by DVCS far more than others. Your comment seems to imply that only the tip of each push is

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > You need to separate "what is good for David" from "what is good for > the project". Encouraging decentralized development and long-lived > branches is not actually in the best interest of the project. > > I agree that there are some (quite minor IMO, like offline commits) > advantages that git can

I am in search of open-source software to track billable time for myself. A quick Google search did not find anything that is open-source but I am hoping that this group might know of such software? The platform is C7.

Hi, is it possible to use some statistic computing by R in proprietary software? Our software is written in c#, and we intend to use http://rdotnet.codeplex.com/ to get R work there. Especially we want to use loess function. Thanks, Best regards, Stanislav [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I have reported a bug on codeplex: http://ironruby.codeplex.com/workitem/6353 Will it be fixed in next release? Thank you, Anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20110802/78a24916/attachment.html>