On 25/02/15 09:43 AM, chirp_devel-request@intrepid.danplanet.com wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:48:51 -0800 From: Mathew Mrosko chirp@matmrosko.com Subject: Re: [chirp_devel] git vs hg patches [was: [PATCH 1/4] chirp.py: add --list-radios option (#2343)] To: chirp_devel@intrepid.danplanet.com Message-ID: 54ECE3B3.7010305@matmrosko.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Dan,
If you're taking opinions of casual observers, I'm all for moving to git: github or gerrit. As silly as the "git vs. mercurial" arguments usually are, I've always been on the git side of things. With that, I've always used an importer to get the latest code into a git repo when I poke around. I don't think I've ever contributed so much as a typo-fix patch to this particular project, so take my opinion for what it's worth (nothing), but I'm all for a move to git. I just couldn't stand to see you and Zach go back and forth without another name in the mix and thought I'd reply with another +1 for a move to git. ;)
Mat
On 02/24/2015 09:39 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
...I think we need to make sure a critical mass is on board before we make such a drastic switch.... :) --Dan
chirp_devel mailing list chirp_devel@intrepid.danplanet.com http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/chirp_devel Developer docs: http://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Developers
I am trying to avoid taking the short path to "inbox zero nirvana" (select-all, delete)... Too many projects, not enough time, family members becoming cyborgs, radio events to organize, work too busy... all the usual problems of life preventing me from having fun helping to improve CHIRP. These CHIRP digest emails and patches aren't so easy to read on a phone screen either and replying to them without a desktop + real keyboard is painful. I felt that replying to this email was kinda important.
First, allow me to state that the CHIRP development community continues to impress me. I have been learning lots from watching patches and discussions flow by as I slowly learn the CHIRP code base. I enjoy telling others I meet about how professional and positive the CHIRP community is (and tolerant of noobs like me).
Now, to get to the point, I too am strongly-rooted over in the git camp and have used git daily for over 10 years now. My mercurial experience is from before 2005 and might be the cause of some of my troubles. The few times I've been able to play with CHIRP would have been more productive had I not devoted such a large percentage of my time to figuring out how to let me use alternate development tools while still fitting within the confines of the hg-mq patch submission process (i.e.: git, gitk, git-gui).
I tried submitting some stuff using hg-git which didn't work out and then I resorted to a pure hg repo plus a git-hg clone just so I can visualize and review things as I bounce around from machine-to-machine and from work-to-home. I even pushed a clone of the main and stable branches from hg back up to github because it was really handy for me (manually-updated whenever-I-get-around-to-it)...
https://github.com/tylert/chirp.hg.git
I agree with all the comments I have been seeing about retaining mercurial support but I would very, very much enjoy having a patch submission process that can support *both* mercurial *and* git (and, perhaps, even raw unix patches too). I don't wish to exclude folks who perfer mercurial (and/or the mq subset) but I find the options provided to me by using git feature branches to be extremely beneficial to my preferred workflow as I have been using them for the past decade.
I have, so far, also ran into two local hams in my area who both claimed to have once provided patches to CHIRP in the past but were ignored. I suspect that both of them failed to get past the mercurial hurdle which would certainly explain this failure. I have assured them that it was most likely a case of improperly-formatted patches.
73,
Tyler Tidman VA3DGN (RAC CEC) OARC Vice-President EMRG Web Janitor RAC Logo Geek