Re: ANNOUNCE: Debian build scripts on a public Monotone server

["Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Now, you can also follow their development
> almost in real-time thanks to Monotone, a powerful distributed version
> control system.
> ...
> Since I do most of my Debian work on the train and without any network
> connection, I require a _distributed_ version control system.  After
> evaluating[6] several candidates, I settled on Monotone[7] several
> months ago.
> ...
> I believe that Monotone is the Ada of version control systems, so it
> is only appropriate that I use it for my Ada work.  Monotone is safe,
> correct and powerful _by design_.  It uses cryptographic keys to
> authenticate changes.  It is written by elite programmers who, despite
> using C++, have the "Ada attitude": no pointers, one assert() every 9
> lines of code, massive use of generics (templates), and not a single
> critical bug in 3 years.  The slides at [8] and my own tests convinced
> me to switch from Meta-CVS several months ago for my Debian packages,
> as well as for other work.
> ...
> (I particularly dislike Subversion and its distributed derivative,
> SVK.  I do not recommend them because their working model is
> inherently broken, IMHO.  A branch is NOT a directory, and a tag is
> NEITHER a branch NOR a directory.  And Subversion does not even try to
> keep track of merges; just like C++ does not even try to multitask.)
> ...

Thanks for the access to the Debian scripts AND the information on
Monotone.

Just looking at Monotone's web site and how organized it is (along with
your recommendation), is going to make me quit thinking of Subversion
as the "successor" to CVS.

A quick glance at Monotone's change control history looks like they try
to ensure that existing projects can move forward through their
improvements.  Do you consider Monotone as "safe" for production
environments, even though they're not at "release 1.0" yet? Would you
recommend them as an alternative to CVS for new projects needing a
version control system, but wanting to be comfortable that they'll not
regret entrusting their project to Monotone?

Comparing Monotone to Ada to me is high praise. If I understood you
correctly, you seem to be saying that even though Monotone is only at
version 0.30, Monotone's "standards" and professionalism make their
v0.30 "better" than a lesser tools' 1.0+ version... Is that true?

Bringing us back to Ada: Is Monotone relatively Ada friendly? Does it
handle Ada "projects" and source code naturally?

Steve