Re: [gforth] Multiple problems with latest Gforth-CVS

[David Kuehling]

>>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Paysan <address@hidden> writes:

> The point is - if Gforth is a library, the main program maybe doesn't
> want to quit when someone says "bye" in the Forth interpreter.
[..]

Then what about just vectoring bye in the C-code?  This way we could
keep the old implementation by default.

>> I think it's about time to drop CVS.  It really gets in the way when
>> working on Gforth sources.  I'm not a big fan of Git, too complex,
>> too many ways to do the same thing (and even more ways to do it
>> slightly wrong).  But already much better than CVS.

> We've probably tried all DVCSes - Gerald uses Mercurial for SWIG, I
> used Bazaar for some time and now use Fossil for net2o and the VDs,
> but as Git is the top dog, it is probably the most appropriate.

Given the abilities of the average Forther, I think we should at least
consider SVN.  How many forks of Gforth are there ever going to exist?

> Git has some typical Linus mistakes, like no reasonable defaults -
> when you create a public git repository to push into, it *does* create
> a reasonable default on-checkin action script, but it does not
> activate it (which is completely stupid).  The other completely stupid
> thing is that it requires a switch on commit for "commit everything".
> If I say "commit" without argument, I mean "commit everything", not
> "commit nothing", as git interprets it.

I could list more mistakes, and I haven't even used Git much yet.

  * Having no proper thought-through design *at* *all* at the the user
  interface level.

  * Possible data loss at some undefined time when the Garbage collector
  runs after branches/tags have been removed/rebased (a Garbage
  Collector that's waiting to eat my code?  WTF?).

  * Being completely glued together by perl scripts.  Did you have a
  look at what stuff TortoiseGit has to install on Windows to make a
  working Git client?  AFAIK there's a full cygwin installed beneath it.
  This is why GitHub re-implemented a (proprietary/closed) Git for their
  servers.

  * Lots of features missing when compared to SVN: no proper
  svn:externals (submodules ar a joke), no cherry-picking merges, no
  subtree merges, no per-file properties.

Not that I'd object to Git.  Anything is better than CVS.

cheers,

David
-- 
GnuPG public key: http://dvdkhlng.users.sourceforge.net/dk.gpg
Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205  D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40

pgpAZDS61dgCC.pgp
Description: PGP signature