From rdpeng at gmail.com  Fri May 28 04:18:03 2010
From: rdpeng at gmail.com (Roger Peng)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:18:03 -0400
Subject: [Rd] SVN vs DVCS
In-Reply-To: <4BFD5711.6080003@userprimary.net>
References: <AANLkTikqeJ_LEosa4ett4bLPO9SD375Lz_lA88Z5sEAX@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimh6KCb-n5Onh1T5EHv60JG0zUoRSBI42uo7f29@mail.gmail.com>
	<19452.60812.190425.523797@lynne.math.ethz.ch>
	<AANLkTikCCxnNw5i-2sBYQ5gv80OBRhrucni3APUBhnDu@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFD5711.6080003@userprimary.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinL6xh7lxRHTyCTzBxNSjR3eWvPXWI66DUpWwqp@mail.gmail.com>

I think the main advantage of a DVCS is that it allows many many
people to make changes to a project and to integrate those changes in
a non-insane way. Given that R as a very restricted list of people who
actually make changes to the source, it doesn't seem that something
like git or Hg would provide a major advantage. If the people on that
list are happy with SVN then there's not much else to say. However, if
it were thought that maybe we want more people submitting
patches/making changes, then perhaps it might make more sense to move
to a DVCS.

I use git for everything mainly because it's *fast* and it has much
better tools for viewing changes/patches and revision history. For
example, 'git bisect' has allowed me track down bugs that would have
been very painful for me because I'm not intimately familiar with the
entire R source code.

-roger

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Seth Falcon <seth at userprimary.net> wrote:
> On 5/26/10 4:16 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> Note that one can also use any of the dvcs systems without actually
>> moving from svn by using the dvcs (or associated extension/addon) as
>> an svn client or by using it on an svn checkout.
>
> FWIW, I have been using git for several years now as my vsc of choice and
> use it for all svn-backed projects (R included) via git-svn.
>
> Some of the things I like:
>
> - Being able to organize changes in local commits that can be revised,
> reordered, rebased prior to publishing. ?Once I got in the habit of working
> this way, I simply can't imagine going back.
>
> - Having quick access to full repository history without network
> access/delay. ?Features for searching change history are more powerful (or
> easier for me to use) and I have found that useful as well.
>
> - This may not be true any longer with more recent svn servers/clients, but
> aside form the initial repo clone, working via git-svn was noticeably faster
> than straight svn client (!) -- I think related to how the tools organize
> the working copy and how many fstat calls they make.
>
> - I find the log reviewing functionality much better suited to reviewing
> changes.
>
>
> + seth
>
> --
> Seth Falcon | @sfalcon | http://userprimary.net/
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



-- 
Roger D. Peng  |  http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/



[Rd] SVN vs DVCS
Roger Peng