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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b88c7b1a4db3246c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc02.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Reference Manual in texinfo format? References: <87sldpo83w.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4dCdncquF5TP71_YnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@megapath.net> <87odo9lhog.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1170681175.011450.167450@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <0-adnRXpj9QKU1rYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@megapath.net> <1170752459.890968.12150@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Stephen Leake Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:28:49 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ov51lCjf+FoHNxdNfuYCxW5VKOc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com X-Trace: 3092345cb259b759e00d432755 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9138 Date: 2007-02-08T08:28:49-05:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" writes: > In that case, Stephe, you can host your scripts on Ada-France's > monotone server if you like. Anything is better than email, IMHO :) In general, I agree that a real CM system is better than email. But that's only if there is a requirement for sharing files in the first place. I'm the only one working on these files at the moment. When I'm done, I'll publish them, and you can copy them into the Debian distribution. They should _not_ need maintenance after that, but if they do, we'll deal with it then. Again, it's only two files! > PS. Monotone has a nice feature called "trust". You can set up hooks > that will filter revisions based on who committed them (or other > arbitrary criteria), and make them invisible to "update" and other > commands if you don't trust these committers. A trusted committer can > then "approve" a revision to make it visible. What's nice about it is > that the "trust" feature is outside the database, and can be set up > differently in each working copy; the database always contains all > revisions, and each user can choose which revisions to trust. I've finally decided I need to use a distributed CM system at work (I've been using CVS). I'm looking into using 'git', mostly because there is a Cygwin port for it, and the Linux kernel developers use it, so I think it is well-supported. For a similar purpose (trusted vs untrusted committers), they recommend using branches. Apparently it is easy in git to synchronize two branches periodically. That seems more straight-forward to me than the monotone trust mechanism. But I'd have to actually use both on a real project to be sure. Of course, I don't have the time for that :(. -- -- Stephe