Hi,

I've promised to at least two people that I would install a version control system for Retro Software. Obviously this would be for the open source projects for modern systems like BeebAsm, rather than any beeb games in development. In all those conversations, I assumed that would be (and so was talking about) Subversion.

However, now that I've finally come round to thinking about setting it up - I thought I should ask the question about whether people would prefer a distributed VCS such as Mercurial, instead, as they seem to be pretty popular with devs these days.

I'll freely admit I have next to no experience with hg but I'd be willing to have a crack at setting it up and publishing the repository through something like the hgwebdir.cgi script, if people would prefer it to Subversion.

So ... responses, please.

• Would you use a VCS if we hosted it?
• For which projects?
• Would you prefer Subversion or Mercurial?

I'm aware that take-up will probably be limited so particularly interested to hear from those I think were hoping to use it (i.e. Rich, elaverick).

Thanks,

Sam.

Cool! My choice would be Subversion, simply because I'm a creature of habit and I've been using it for years already. I'd never even heard of Mercurial until you mentioned it - just had a look at the website, and for me it doesn't offer anything over Subversion. In fact, I prefer Subversion's approach of keeping the revisions centralised on a server.

So, Subversion for me

Hmm ... I sometimes forget that other people don't waste as much time on Slashdot as I do.

I don't want to propose one over the other, as I'm less likely to be using it as much as you! My experience is, like yours, Rich - with Subversion. However, I've been noticing a big push away from it over the last couple of years. On another mailing list I subscribe to, one of the original designers/authors of Subversion, Ben Collins-Sussman (who literally wrote the book on it) specifically stated that he strictly uses hg [aka Mercurial] for personal work now. "Hope that's a good testimonial. ".

So I'm prepared to believe there's something to this distributed VCS approach.

A bit of background - distributed VCSs sprang up a few years back when the proprietary version control system being used for the Linux kernel withdrew some of the free licenses it had granted to some kernel developers (looong story behind this). When this happened, Linus was so unimpressed with the idea of switching to Subversion that he developed the DVCS git from scratch. Now, I'm not suggesting we switch to git because the interface is apparently very unixy and inconsistent. Mercurial was created at around the same time and has the same basic functionality and design with very similar features but has a more consistent user interface and is generally easier to learn. Note: that even with a distributed VCS, the project can still be distributed via a server - and there should be a web front-end to it, too. Assuming I can get it all working.

I just want to make sure that we make an intelligent choice now, so we don't end up questioning the decision later down the line.

If everyone could have a quick read up on Mercurial (here's one link I've been strongly recommended: http://hginit.com/) before you make your mind up that'd be good. If you still prefer Subversion, then we'll stick with that.

Also, one other question is about what tools you plan to use - svn has the advantage that it is integrated into more tools but if you're only going to use TortoiseSVN then bear in mind that there is a Mercurial equivalent.

Cheers,

Sam.

I've got more experience with SVN than I have Mercurial but I'd be willing to give it a try. The one thing I don't quite get tho... what happens if there are no clients (seeds?) online when a new user wants to download a copy of the tree? Is it just a tracker or does it host a copy server side also?

Yes, absolutely. The real difference, AIUI, is just that the copy hosted on the server is no longer the sole main repository. Instead, everyone hosts a complete copy of the repository themselves which are all equivalent - there is no "master". As everyone holds a copy of the entire repository locally, therefore, it should be even safer than using svn. And, to preempt your next question, generally the repositories on your hard disk are actually smaller than their Subversion equivalents. If you read the first part of the hginit.com tutorial, it gives a pretty good overview of the differences between them (including very specific details on why Subversion is considered inferior).

Sam.

Yeah ok I'd be up for that, the actual backend functionality doesn't really concern me too much as long as it does roughly the same from my perspective. I also notice there are some nice plug-ins for Visual Studio which always wins for me.

I'm not sure how much value we'll really get from the distributed side of things, just bearing in mind how small our dev community really is, but I don't see that there's anything to lose from it.

Agreed - but TBH the small size of our community is really an argument that applies to our use of any VCS, as opposed to just a distributed VCS. The distributed model sort of gives the impression that there's no repository on a central server, which isn't strictly true. A server is not required in a DVCS setup but we'd certainly have one - so it really wouldn't look much different than if we used svn in that respect. It's basically about whether we want to learn a new methodology which is allegedly better than what we're used to. Certainly, I can relate to the merging and branching pain with Subversion which is referred to in that tutorial, so if Mercurial does sort that out like they claim it does, I'm intrigued.

But. I don't want to lead anyone into learning something new if they don't want to ... hence this discussion.

Rich, once you've had a chance to look over that link, has your opinion changed or would you rather we just stuck with what we know*?

Sam.

* Although actually I know svn from the client-side, so either way I'm going to be in new territory.

I don't have time to properly read all the way through the thread right now, I'll catch up this evening but yes, I would use it for my current Mac / Acorn project(s) should they go OpenSource, which won't be right from the start.

At work, I've currently got in place SVN for my team but am looking to move over to GIT as we are all remote users. So far I'm liking it and it's working well for my testing (I'm using the Acorn stuff to test it). I just need to check what the windows support is like as I think it might be lacking before I go fully with GIT.

From my point of view I also need to check on support with the full Atlassian suite as well but that's not going to be a factor with what you're doing.

Martin.

Hi, Martin.

Yes, if you read back you'll see I deliberately omitted suggesting git, as the learning curve really would be a killer for our small community. Mercurial is based on the same DVCS principles as git but, I'm told, is far easier to pick up and has a more consistent interface.

OK, I've put in a poll in my first post to allow people to cast their votes. I'm fine whatever the decision, but would appreciate if you all could look over the Mercurial tutorial, hginit.com, I linked before casting your vote.

Cheers,

Sam.

No worries - I literally just plumped for GIT based on the fact that it seemed very popular

I'll add Mercurial to my list of ones to evaluate. It could be just what I need at my end for all I know!

Hmm, am I really the only person that voted so far?

I only got a little way through the tutorial site the other day before money paying work had to take precedence but as far as I got, I hadn't read anything any different to GIT so my vote has gone to Mercurial.

I've a 4 hour train journey tomorrow so maybe I can have another nose

I think Mercurial is basically git but done with the user in mind ... The interface is more consistent and a bit more accessible to non-unixy platforms. I think the cross-platform tool support is a bit better too, though I haven't done a proper survey.

I'll poke Rich and elaverick and see if I can encourage another couple of votes ...

Sam.

Sam, don't mean to take this off topic, but what UI are you looking at, or have in mind for Mercurial? From what I can see it's command line based.

well, you guys can use whatever tools you want that support it. Personally, if you're using Windows, I'd probably suggest starting with TortoiseHg - just because I've used TortoiseCVS and TortoiseSVN to good effect in the past. That integrates directly into Windows Explorer and so can be used with whatever editor/IDE you're using.

Of course, if you're using some form of IDE such as eclipse, there may well be a plugin to support it (there definitely is for eclipse). I think elaverick mentioned he'd found such a plugin for Visual Studio too.

Bear in mind I have no more experience than anyone else with it at this point - I've just read enough to convince me that it might be an improvement over Subversion, if everyone is happy to trial it. There's so few of us that will use it and everyone's spare time is so tight though, I don't want to make that call without buy-in from everyone. I have no desire to make life harder for us hobbyists.

Sam.

Well, my vote is cast - I'll give Mercurial a go, after all I've got a client installed now, and, in fairness, it does seem to be a better system. I'll have to get to know how it all works now though - hopefully not a big learning curve. Quite honestly, there can't be anything more difficult than the obscure merge semantics of SVN.

Cheers for your time in exploring this and setting it up, Sam

Right-oh. We haven't had a poll vote from elaverick yet but I think he was willing to give it a go, so let's say we'll start with Mercurial.

It'll be a brave new world for all of us, and I really hope it pans out or I'm going to look like an ass.

I'm actually away this weekend, but I will endeavour to get the server setup sometime next week. I don't want to rush it as it's all unfamiliar territory but as you guys have waited this long, I'm sure another week or so won't kill you. Meantime, we've all got plenty to be reading up on!

If we all decide it doesn't work later on, we always have the option of reverting to Subversion. But if it does, well, we'll all have stuff to take back to work and say "Look how cool and up-to-date a coder I am. I use a distributed VCS.".

Sam.

I already do. I use bzr

Interesting - did you get anywhere with it?

I've been tinkering with Git the past couple of days myself due to crippling 'free' licencing restrictions on Perforce (ie you can only have 2 users)

Git isn't bad at all, my one problem with it is the diffs and merges are very, as you say, Unixy. All that + and - lark, it's nice to have a visual representation of it.

I'll take a look at Mercurial now

Yep, both Rich and elaverick have projects hosted on it, though I was waiting for there to be some activity on the projects and make sure they were happy with it, before making a big announcement.

More info can found on this page. You can check-out BeebASM straight from the public repository now, though you can't commit changes back unless you ask me to add you to the project.

If you want to be added to either of the projects currently hosted so you can commit changes (and Rich/elaverick are happy with that), or want me to create a new one for you to play with, just drop me a line.

Sam.

Aha nice one - I grabbed the latest BeebASM!

I ended up going with bzr myself purely because it has a nice Windows tool to go with it.

No need to add me to projects, got enough of my own stuff to do