Git maintainer Junio Hamano [story] announced the official 1.0.0 release of git, the directory content manager originally written by Linus Torvalds and used to manage the Linux kernel source tree. Junio notes that there haven't been any big changes recently, "[the] pre 1.0 version has been in production use by the kernel folks for quite some time, and the changes since 1.0rc are pretty small and primarily consist of documenation updates, clone/fetch enhancements and miscellaneous bugfixes."
Development of the git directory content manager was begun by Linus Torvalds in early April of 2005 [story], quickly following the announcement that BitKeeper would no longer be freely available to kernel developers [story]. Git rapidly evolved with the help of an active developer community, quickly enough that when the 2.6.12 kernel was released two months later it was already being managed by git [story].
From: Junio C Hamano [email blocked] To: git, [email blocked] Subject: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:10 -0800 GIT 1.0.0 is found at the usual places: Tarball http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/ RPM http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/ Debian http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/debian/ GIT git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ The name "1.0.0" ought to mean a significant milestone, but actually it is not. Pre 1.0 version has been in production use by the kernel folks for quite some time, and the changes since 1.0rc are pretty small and primarily consist of documenation updates, clone/fetch enhancements and miscellaneous bugfixes. Thank you all who gave patches, comments and time. Happy hacking, and a little early ho-ho-ho.
I've recently started coding,
I've recently started coding, I'm probably at the point where I should start to use a source code management facility of some sort.
Should I use git, svn or cvs. They seem to be what people use (or what are currently talked about), all of them are fairly foriegn to me at this point. What would people recommend?
I would definitely not use cv
I would definitely not use cvs. As for the rest it's up to you to decide ;-)
If you need something for you alone then svn could be a good tool. But make sure to check out bazaar(-ng) and mercurial as well :-D
RE: I would definitely not use cv
Ah, bollocks.
Subversion is a CVS clone, with a few extras thrown in.
Both SVN and CVS show a very dated design and can be unwieldy for simple operations.
That said, learning them is very useful as most projects these days use one or the other. Just try out whatever comes across your path, and make your own decision.
Ummm, SVN's design is complet
Ummm, SVN's design is completely different from CVS. The only similarity is in the command-line interface, as a way of helping CVS users adjust.
CVS is basically dead, it just hasn't gone on the cart yet. Quite a few projects (including very large OSS codebases) have switched to SVN, and it's proven to be stable and useable.
I believe Perforce is free if you don't use it for commercial software, might be worth looking at as well.
Use Darcs (http://www.darcs.n
Use Darcs (http://www.darcs.net/). It's much simplier than CVS or SVN, I think it's ideal for newbie-programmers (one doesn't have to read so much before he starts to benefit from the SCM).
Darcs
Unfortunately, the development of Darcs has slowed down a lot. It is still more beginner-friendly than Git, but it seems Git wins on all other points now.
You might also want to try Cogito, a front-end to Git. The power of Git with the ease of use of more traditional SCMs.
I'd like to point out mercuri
I'd like to point out mercurial, it's really very good, fast and does
all things one would expect from a SCM tool...
Well, Darcs does everything I
Well, Darcs does everything I need. I haven't ever encountered any single bug. Maybe it's simply somewhat complete piece of software?
Please see http://www.ma
Please see
http://www.mail-archive.com/darcs-users@darcs.net/msg01486.html
for my take about Git vs. Darcs.
minor bugfix git 1.0b released
git 1.0b was released shortly after 1.0 with a minor bugfix : http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/21/257
there's monotone, too.. http:
there's monotone, too.. http://www.venge.net/monotone - that's the one that git is modelled after, but much more user friendly
Linus and SCM development
Anyone else notice that Linus wrote an SCM, which is against BitKeeper's usage policy? Yeah, yeah, he didn't call it an SCM... But come on, we all know it is.
I just find it funny that BitMover couldn't really do anything about it because of fear of developer backlash.
Bitkeeper withdrew the offer
Bitkeeper withdrew the offer didn't they? It takes two to make an agreement. If Bitkeeper didn't honour their end, why should Linus?
IMO BK license doesn't forbid work on other SCMs
You just couldn't work on other SCMs *whilst* using free BK (and I guess this is moot now, since free BK does not exist anymore). IANAL but when I switched SCMs myself I did read the license through pretty carefully for this point. Larry McVoy did plan to add an explicit clause to the effect of "don't work on competitors for a couple of years" but the license was never revised in the end. Linus stopped using free BK a couple of months early so that he could work on git and start managing releases with it.
Whilst LM is known for his - eh - aggressive legal stance regarding competing projects, the major git developers appear (to me) to be safe in the letter of the license.