From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6511c3dc6e1155c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GWindows and David Botton Date: 05 Oct 2004 18:16:18 -0400 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <2004100312401227544%david@bottoncom> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1097014596 62614 212.85.156.195 (5 Oct 2004 22:16:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:16:36 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4759 Date: 2004-10-05T18:16:18-04:00 Brian May writes: > >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Leake writes: > > Stephen> Because that's what SourceForge supports. We need a > Stephen> server that won't go away, that many independent > Stephen> developers can use. > > Any site that allows HTTP access will work with TLA, although in > read-only access. > > Any site that allows sftp access will work with TLA, not sure if > sourceforge does or not. The question is whether the SourceForge servers are running the TLA server software (I assume there is a server executable?). As far as I know, they are not. Nor does the typical user (that's us) have the permission to run new code on the servers. > Stephen> Is there an available, robustly supported server that provides > Stephen> TLA/arch access, like SourceForge does for CVS? > > Yes, there are. For example there is http://alioth.debian.org/, run by > Debian, see http://arch.debian.org/ for details. I believe alioth also > supports subversion. There are others available, I can't think of them > off-hand. Hmm. It seems somehow "wrong" to host a Windows project on a Debian server :). Do you have any insight into the reliability of alioth? I know Debian in general strives for reliability over wizzyness. But it is an all-volunteer organization. So for our purposes, I think SourceForge is a better choice. > >> * GPG signed repository updates (could be good especially important > >> when writing critical software; makes it harder for intruders to > >> tamper with the archive undetected). > > Stephen> I'm not sure that's much better than ssh access. > > ssh solves a different problem; ssh is transport layer, this is when > it is stored on disk. > > So, when committing a changeset, I sign the changeset too. Now if > somebody managed to get write access to the repository, and changed it > to make it look like I inserted malicious code, the signature would no > longer match, and it would be clear the archive is corrupt. Ok, that would be useful in some situations. But I'm not too worried about that sort of thing. > To be fair, it does have some disadvantages: > > * It requires a new mind set, and old CVS concepts have to be > forgotten and relearnt. Hey, we want people to learn new concepts (Ada vs C, etc); that's a plus :). > * It was built by a developer who hates Windows. As such, Windows > support is still not official. That's obviously a killer for an explicitly Windows-only project. > * The lead developer likes command line tools, e.g. patch, reject > files, etc. Some people may not like the absence of a GUI > interface. I need an Emacs interface. As in I won't use it without one. > Dealing with rejects by looking at a reject file from patch takes > a bit of getting use to (the developers have good reasons for > doing it this way, they say it makes it easier to manage conflicts > this way). Have they ever seen Emacs pcvs? That's far and away the best user interface to a CM tool I've ever seen. > * Some commands are low level compared with other source code > revision systems. There is no "annotate" command for example > (although you can get it with add on software). There is no single > command to compare two arbitrary versions (although comparing the > current checked out version with the same version in the repository > is easy; Also finding a list of change-sets that aren't in your > checked out version is easy). That's what the Emacs interface is for; you build user-friendly front-end commands on top of the command line primitives. -- -- Stephe