[arch-general] 1. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning)

Thu Aug 26 22:51:14 EDT 2010

Nice to get your suggestions. I'd better try git, since many recommend. As
for svn, just "svnadmin create "a repository does work?
PS: Sorry for my stupidity. I'm new to mailing list, and don't know how to
reply a certain post.

Thank you all

2010/8/27 <arch-general-request at archlinux.org>

> Send arch-general mailing list submissions to
>        arch-general at archlinux.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        arch-general-request at archlinux.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        arch-general-owner at archlinux.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of arch-general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning)
>   2. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning)
>   3. Re: version control system for normal user (Philipp ?berbacher)
>   4. Re: version control system for normal user (fons at kokkinizita.net)
>   5. Re: version control system for normal user (Chris Bannister)
>   6. Re: [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses,     GPL3 only
>      (Tavian Barnes)
>   7. Re: version control system for normal user (John Holbrook)
>   8. Re: rc.conf man page (Joe(theWordy)Philbrook)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:02:40 +0100
> From: Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=f21UQK=ZKbYfbKw10j5kMS1XX-JjYbP7EY+K6 at mail.gmail.com<ZKbYfbKw10j5kMS1XX-JjYbP7EY%2BK6 at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:58, Florian Pritz <bluewind at server-speed.net>
> wrote:
> > On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,
> I
> >> have to test and revise the source code,
> >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and
> what's
> >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a
> version
> >> control system which I can run as a
> >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is
> > what the use for kernel develoment ;)
>
> Or darcs, or hg (mercurial), or monotone... pretty much any modern
> de-centralised (disconnected) VCS will do.
>
> /M
>
> --
> Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
> magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org
> http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:05:13 +0100
> From: Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=XAGq1MKkNSXSwN8kg+P9HQFhN-OStO-V51vfe at mail.gmail.com<XAGq1MKkNSXSwN8kg%2BP9HQFhN-OStO-V51vfe at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 16:02, David Rosenstrauch <darose at darose.net>
> wrote:
> > On 08/26/2010 10:56 AM, jewelshaw wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,
> I
> >> have to test and revise the source code,
> >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and
> what's
> >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a
> >> version
> >> control system which I can run as a
> >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Jiawei Shao
> >
> > darcs?
>
> Indeed http://darcs.net/
>
> /M
>
> --
> Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
> magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org
> http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:05:27 +0200
> From: Philipp ?berbacher <hollunder at lavabit.com>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: arch-general <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <1282835019-sup-308 at eris>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Excerpts from Florian Pritz's message of 2010-08-26 16:58:39 +0200:
> > On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >     I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege.
> Usually, I
> > > have to test and revise the source code,
> > > while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and
> what's
> > > old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> > > with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a
> version
> > > control system which I can run as a
> > > normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is
> > what the use for kernel develoment ;)
>
> I was surprised seeing rcs in the repos, given its age.
>
> git is really handy. I don't know whether/how to install it without root
> privileges, but I imagine it's possible.
> --
> Philipp
>
> --
> "Wir stehen selbst entt?uscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
> und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:02:40 +0200
> From: fons at kokkinizita.net
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: arch-general at archlinux.org
> Message-ID: <20100826150240.GC4151 at zita2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:
>
> >     I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,
> I
> > have to test and revise the source code,
> > while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
> > old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> > with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a
> version
> > control system which I can run as a
> > normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
>
> If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your
> private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN.
>
> The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but
> some people prefer it.
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
> There are three of them, and Alleline.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:31:27 +0100
> From: Chris Bannister <c.bannister at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTikp0u2yzLepAYByONRGk2+a=YqKDBe6AW0N+qd+ at mail.gmail.com<YqKDBe6AW0N%2Bqd%2B at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since,
> fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com
>
> On 26 August 2010 16:02,  <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:
> >
> >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,
> I
> >> have to test and revise the source code,
> >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and
> what's
> >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a
> version
> >> control system which I can run as a
> >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your
> > private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN.
> >
> > The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but
> > some people prefer it.
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> > --
> > FA
> >
> > There are three of them, and Alleline.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:53:54 -0600
> From: Tavian Barnes <tavianator at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses,
>        GPL3 only
> To: General Discusson about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTimzjsx7=KU63QibSLJj81zV0ts+czCOGBvMwkwF at mail.gmail.com<KU63QibSLJj81zV0ts%2BczCOGBvMwkwF at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 26 August 2010 06:23, Ray Rashif <schivmeister at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina <ralsina at netmanagers.com.ar>
> wrote:
> >> On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> >>> My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
> >>> Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
> >>> later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are
> >>> lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to
> >>> create a naming scheme which will fit all.
> >>
> >> Sure:
> >>
> >> GPL2
> >> GPL2+
> >> GPL3
> >> GPL3+
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
> >
> > Here's what is currently being done:
> >
> > ln -s GPL2 GPL
> >
> > So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither
> > does the FSF.
> >
> > There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only
> > license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING:
> >
> > <quote>
> > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> > ?services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> > ?of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> > ?Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > ?Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
> > ?kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
> >
> > ?Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > ?is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > ?v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
> >
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Linus Torvalds
> > </quote>
> >
> > That is the only difference between that license text and the one in
> > /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an
> > "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any
> > later version".
> >
> > == GPL2 ==
> > If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the
> > inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention:
> >
> > license=('custom:GPL2')
> >
> > And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of
> > "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check
> > out.
> >
> > All other "normal" GPL software should have:
> >
> > license=('GPL')
> >
> > Which needs no intervention.
> >
> > == GPL3 ==
> > Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot,
> > for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software
> > like the kernel need to have:
> >
> > license=('custom:GPL3')
> >
> > And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING.
> >
> > While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have:
> >
> > license=('GPL3')
> >
> > == TL;DR ==
> > Basically, we just standardise the use of:
> >
> > license=('custom:GPLn')
> >
> > For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only
> > the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to
> > this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO.
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/
> >
> >
> > --
> > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
> >
>
> >From my understanding of copyright, it seems to me that we don't have
> to treat GPL2-only and GPL2+ works any differently.  Both were
> distributed under the GPLv2, and can obviously be redistributed under
> the same license.  Whether a package decides to add the "or any later
> version" extension isn't really our problem; we correctly identify the
> licence under which the software was _actually_ released.  If someone
> wants to relicense it, they can go and get the actual source (which
> they'll need anyway) and it'll say that they are free to distribute it
> under later GPL versions.  But of course, IANAL.
>
> --
> Tavian Barnes
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:54 -0700
> From: John Holbrook <johnholbrook at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=SERY0eP8zX1WrBT5WL392uKYTCVim0dq_Fc3H at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> "I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since,
> fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com"
>
> I think you meant github.com
>
> ----
>
> www.linuxgeek.ca
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:32:19 -0400
> From: "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" <jtwdyp at ttlc.net>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] rc.conf man page
> To: arch-general at archlinux.org
> Message-ID:
>        <alpine.LNX.2.00.1008261535260.4998 at OpenSuSEme2010.localdomain>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> It would appear that on Aug 26, Dave Reisner did say:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
> > > As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well
> > > commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL.
> > > Especially when they include examples for beginners and those of us who
> > > have difficulty remembering. ;-7
> > >
> > > My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the
> > > configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less
> well
> > > commented, or it's comments become outdated.  And that man pages tend
> to
> > > be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard
> time
> > > understanding and are often short on examples. So rather than having
> the
> > > rc.conf refer to a man page for instruction on how to use it. I'd much
> > > prefer that the primary method of "guidance" remain in the rc.local and
> > > perhaps include in any man page a url from which one can download a
> > > current rc.local.example file.
> >
> > I don't follow -- how does relocating comments to a man page make them
> > inherently any more technical? If you have specific concerns about the
> > verbiage I've used, I'm happy to address them.
>
> Please don't misunderstand me to mean that I take exception to the your
> "verbiage". In fact _IF_ I had to depend on a man page rather than a well
> commented rc.config file someday, I rather hope the man page is very much
> like yours.
>
> > I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving them in the file itself as well,
> > but as brought up earlier, it then exposes the chance for the man page
> > and the comments to be out of sync. I'll propose a middle ground --
> > syntax exists in both places (as its much less likely to change), but
> > more detailed explanations are provided only in the man page.
>
> Now that might be good. A man page should have fully detailed explanations
> as well as syntax (and I think at least some examples)... Where as an
> actual
> config file should be rich in commented out examples but as far as
> explanations go, I think concise one liners that rely on the examples to
> impart a goodly part of the instruction, are the way to go. Especially if
> it's practical to include in the config file a hint that the man file
> exists...
>
> I also think that the idea of including in the man page a url to an
> example config file that is as 'up to date', and as 'in sync' with the
> man page as possible, would be a good hedge against the mutable nature of
> the config file.
>
> My feelings about man pages (and info documents) in general, stem from
> years of scratching my head while trying to figure out how to do one
> unfamiliar task or another with only such documentation to go by. I would
> not really be surprised to find that most of the man pages found on an
> Arch system might well be better written than the ones that made me feel
> like they were meant to impress some professor rather than to impart
> knowledge to those that don't already have a good grasp of the subject. I
> know the Arch wiki at least does a real good job of imparting knowledge
> (once you find the right document)... Which makes me wonder if at the end
> of the man page, in addition to a url for a current version of the
> commented config file, would it possibly be a good idea to also reference
> any applicable wiki pages?
>
> --
> |   ---   ___
> |   <0>   <->     Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
> |       ^              J(tWdy)P
> |    ~\___/~      <<jtwdyp at ttlc.net>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch-general mailing list
> arch-general at archlinux.org
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general
>
>
> End of arch-general Digest, Vol 70, Issue 80
> ********************************************
>