[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[ANN] bfts 1.0.0 Released

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 1:07:00 AM

bfts version 1.0.0 has been released!

http://rubyforge.org/pro...

BFTS is a branch of rubicon with the intent of auditing all of rubicon
against the latest version of 1.8.x, stripping all the cruft, and
getting everything up to date again. rubicon is dead and the authors
have shown no interest in getting things moving again. BFTS hopes to
fix that.

Changes:

*** 1.0.0 / 2005-10-28
+ 1 major enhancement
+ Birthday!

http://rubyforge.org/pro...
28 Answers

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

10/31/2006 1:26:00 AM

0

Ryan Davis wrote:
> bfts version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pro...
>
> BFTS is a branch of rubicon with the intent of auditing all of rubicon
> against the latest version of 1.8.x, stripping all the cruft, and
> getting everything up to date again. rubicon is dead and the authors
> have shown no interest in getting things moving again. BFTS hopes to
> fix that.
>
> Changes:
>
> *** 1.0.0 / 2005-10-28
> + 1 major enhancement
> + Birthday!
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pro...
>
>
>
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I'm going to go out and buy a new hard
drive and some RAM to celebrate!!

Jeff Dik

10/31/2006 1:11:00 PM

0

This is excellent news!

Is the Subversion repository on rubyforge going to be the main
repository for BTFS development?

Thanks,
Jeff

On 10/30/06, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
> bfts version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pro...
>
> BFTS is a branch of rubicon with the intent of auditing all of rubicon
> against the latest version of 1.8.x, stripping all the cruft, and
> getting everything up to date again. rubicon is dead and the authors
> have shown no interest in getting things moving again. BFTS hopes to
> fix that.
>
> Changes:
>
> *** 1.0.0 / 2005-10-28
> + 1 major enhancement
> + Birthday!
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pro...
>
>
>

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 6:06:00 PM

0


On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:25 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I'm going to go out and buy a new
> hard
> drive and some RAM to celebrate!!

Thanks! I just bought a new mac mini to replace an old loud freebsd
server with a dying hard drive so make sure the RAM works with a mini
and the hard drive is firewire.

Thanks Again!
Ryan

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 6:09:00 PM

0


On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Jeff Dik wrote:

> This is excellent news!

thanks

> Is the Subversion repository on rubyforge going to be the main
> repository for BTFS development?

Actually no, it is just a mirror of the real repo. I got tired of
people pretending that perforce was too high a hurdle to deal with so
I started mirroring it to svn using svk. I think today I'm going to
write something to replace svk because it is some of the worst and
buggiest perl I've dealt with in a long time and all I need is a
simple 1-way mirror.

Brian Mitchell

10/31/2006 7:01:00 PM

0

On 10/31/06, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Jeff Dik wrote:
>
> > This is excellent news!
>
> thanks
>
> > Is the Subversion repository on rubyforge going to be the main
> > repository for BTFS development?
>
> Actually no, it is just a mirror of the real repo. I got tired of
> people pretending that perforce was too high a hurdle to deal with so
> I started mirroring it to svn using svk. I think today I'm going to
> write something to replace svk because it is some of the worst and
> buggiest perl I've dealt with in a long time and all I need is a
> simple 1-way mirror.

Myself being one of those people who are stubborn about using
Perforce, I am glad to hear about a mirror. One tool that I have found
really useful is tailor [1]. It doesn't support Perforce yet but you
might want to look at it if you aren't afraid of Python code.

Though, I would still encourage you to consider a distributed SCM
system (and no -- I don't like svk at all). I get a lot of my free
project time while traveling. I am offline long enough during those
periods that a system that it pays off tremendously. I don't want to
argue other possible differences as it is just a matter of style (to a
point).

Thanks,
Brian.

[1] http://www.darcs.net/DarcsW...

Ben Bleything

10/31/2006 7:01:00 PM

0

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006, Ryan Davis wrote:
> Actually no, it is just a mirror of the real repo. I got tired of
> people pretending that perforce was too high a hurdle to deal with so
> I started mirroring it to svn using svk. I think today I'm going to
> write something to replace svk because it is some of the worst and
> buggiest perl I've dealt with in a long time and all I need is a
> simple 1-way mirror.

I don't think it's too high a hurdle, it's just an unnecessary one. I'm
sure you've got good reasons for preferring it to svn, but I don't know
what they are.

I'd be interested to hear why you prefer your own p4 repo to using
RubyForge's svn.

Ben

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 7:08:00 PM

0


On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Brian Mitchell wrote:

> Myself being one of those people who are stubborn about using
> Perforce, I am glad to hear about a mirror. One tool that I have found
> really useful is tailor [1]. It doesn't support Perforce yet but you
> might want to look at it if you aren't afraid of Python code.

*nod* I'll poke at this. I suspect I need less than 30 lines of ruby
or shell to do this tho.

> Though, I would still encourage you to consider a distributed SCM
> system (and no -- I don't like svk at all). I get a lot of my free
> project time while traveling. I am offline long enough during those
> periods that a system that it pays off tremendously. I don't want to
> argue other possible differences as it is just a matter of style (to a
> point).

ain't gonna happen.

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 7:08:00 PM

0


On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Ben Bleything wrote:

> I don't think it's too high a hurdle, it's just an unnecessary
> one. I'm
> sure you've got good reasons for preferring it to svn, but I don't
> know
> what they are.

how about: subversion blows multicolored chunks?

> I'd be interested to hear why you prefer your own p4 repo to using
> RubyForge's svn.

see above.

Ben Bleything

10/31/2006 7:18:00 PM

0

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006, Ryan Davis wrote:
> how about: subversion blows multicolored chunks?

plz elaborate? It works fine for me and lots of other folks. Again,
I'm not arguing with your opinion, I'm just curious. We used p4 at an
old job of mine and everyone loved it. It's just not as easily
accessable as svn.

Ben

Ryan Davis

10/31/2006 7:32:00 PM

0


On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Ben Bleything wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006, Ryan Davis wrote:
>> how about: subversion blows multicolored chunks?
>
> plz elaborate? It works fine for me and lots of other folks. Again,
> I'm not arguing with your opinion, I'm just curious. We used p4 at an
> old job of mine and everyone loved it. It's just not as easily
> accessable as svn.

hrmmm... to start: slow as dirt, user unfriendly, merging is a bitch,
and prone to corruption. The first two really really really bother me
on a daily basis. The third not as much but is very important to me.
The last one is absolutely unacceptable.

How is p4 less accessible? Easy download and works on nearly any
platform under the sun.