[BioRuby] Remaining work to be done after BioHakathon

[Pjotr Prins]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 08:34:10PM +0900, Naohisa GOTO wrote:
> Currently, I don't know whether changes made in the CVS are
> pushed into the github repository.

According to this:

http://issaris.blogspot.com/2005/11/cvs-to-git-and-back.html 

it is feasible to import the changelog. My github bioruby-testing tree
has no synch with the changelog - I don't think it is necessary
because, as it stands, diffs will be patched into the main tree, when
required and get added to the changelog that way.

However the main tree, were it to be hosted on github, can contain
the CVS log using the tools mentioned in that blog and I will rebranch
the testing tree from the main tree once you get to to that point so
as to have the main changelog again. Note that Jan has reserved the
bioruby name on github for us.

Pj.

P.S. After having used both mercurial (for most of my projects) and
now git I am convinced git is the better choice for Bioruby. Mostly
because it nicely allows handling a central repository (mercurial has
no obvious model for that) and because of the Linux kernel it gets
loads of developer attention - e.g. CVS/SVN mapping and github itself
are major and useful functionalities. I think you will like it
(certainly coming from CVS). I have heavily deployed darcs, mercurial, svn
and now git. With all of them I have had conflicts and broken
repositories.  darcs was nice, but often broke with larger
repositories, mercurial is really nice though its conflict resolution
can be non-obvious with merges, svn is better than CVS, but not a
major step forward (I particularly hate that server deployment and the
BDB tends to get upset mixing ssh and the webservice). So now we have
git. git has impressed me for being so mature and useful. I'll pick it
as the winner for large development efforts.