I think my problems involve TortoiseHg's default settings. They automatically push my commits to the remote repository, when I'd rather resolve things locally first.
I may need to investigate this a little further. In the meantime, following some advice I should have ignored, I managed to really fubar the repository after a particularly errant merge.
Maybe, possibly, permissions should be established to prevent me from doing something so dangerous.
I hear you IG. I have found myself re-explaining the ways of the Cederqvist cvs manual to those that could not be bothered with reading that ancient history.
As to the Tortoise gui overlay on Windows Explorer. I guess I would have to say that I gave up on that back in the days of Win95 as it did unexpected things to me as well. I did give the Bzr tools and gateway tools to other repositories a try back a few years ago and had some success, but became mostly just a sysadmin after some point.
I found the Bzr add on tools that converted what I knew in Bzr to (whatever repo) to work with my mindset the best. But from what little I looked, Bzr is probably on the way out compared to the new hotness Git. Good luck, and post back your findings so others can avoid breaking toes on the rocky bottom bits of the river.
This TortoiseHg that I'm using is on a Linux system, but still acts oddly.
I'm lead to believe that there are default settings that need to be fixed to make the tool act the way I should expect.
Which is kind of dumb, honestly.
well, the linux experience is not as nice as the windows one (to be honest)
the hg manager which you can open from thg is way to complex at first sight; disabling the mq with it is a good thing to get users used to it, and then once they know enable it.
the hg manager also has a pretty descent visualisation of the patch queues, once you have it.
I like it a lot. git stash is nice, but, the visualisations aren't that nice.
It seems to be aimed at being small, portable, and easy to embed, rather than focusing on speed.
As many of you know, I have been looking for such a thing. This appears to be "it" but I'm concerned that it has to be a project that is likely to be around and maintained for the foreseeable future.
Thanks for the heads up IG. Early days indeed, but looks like a fun alternative to firing up a browser or using V8 for Python.
I think a collegue of mine has been taking a look at it, and was pretty fond of its interface.
maybe he will tell me more tomorow.
Fiddling about the V8 api for 2 months now, I think the choice can't be that bad.
finaly you have to know that many QA web stuff is done in python (i.e. selenium)
another means for that is phantom js:
I have used selenium, but had not tried PhantomJS. That sounds like a keeper as well.
By the way, it's a good thing that Visual Basic never caught on as a browser scripting language during aIEeee's market share peak years. That would have been miserable.
yea, V8 is only portable to ARM, i386 and x64, which in our situation is not acceptable.
However, the biggest server side ecosystem was developed for the V8 ecosystem: nodejs.
so, pure library portability will only be there for V8 - which is why triangens hat chosen it for arangodb.
when google forked webkit, they did this for a reason. it clung them to an API which they didn't want to follow anymore, since it had performance implications.
the result is, that V8 did a fundamental api change, which in the case of arango took a lot of hard work to follow. For node this also was a major undertaking, the results aren't released yet.
put short, V8 users != chrome are second class citizens.
there are two more js engines which one shouldn't forget about:
spidermonkey: highly portable, and they claim to be fast... sort of http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/09/mozilla-asks-are-we-fast-yet/
The apple engine - as one may expect, apple wants to leverage its existing eco system to get the best for the buck. As you all know, apple invested heavily in LLVM & CLang - so - yes, this became their solution.
Last summer they published their new kid: https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/FTLJIT
While this binds one to the LLVM compiler infrastructure, it sounds most interesting to me...
oh, yes, and while python aims to be easily integrateable, its not a lightweight thing to compile, neither are its dependencies.
So, no chance to do this and the third language in the game is also not acceptable.
Off the current topic, but does anyone here familiar with engines like PHP know if you take a performance hit for building libraries with functions that may not be used by those including the file in their page?
That is, if I created an object with functions that puts data in a database, or retrieves data from the database, those pages that only need to put data in the database might get impacted by the fact that there's code for putting data in the database (which won't get called, but gets pulled in by an include statement anyway)... is that true or false? Or sorta?
(sorry if I'm using particularly terrible English to ask this, my head is in a weird place right now)
requiring additional php files requires additional processing power consumption
if its that what you were asking.
php has to stat the files, load it, parse it, etc.
Heh, I figured as much. Hm...