IDE+hg

Dear experts,
Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
I
tested Boa Constructor, dr Python, Eric and PIDA none of which has
other than commandline access to Mercurial which is faster bound to
button. The editor Eric claims "Mercurial support" and no obvious
(button or plugin) availability, same with dr Python. Mercurial
support these IDEs claim may mean that it's compatible and you must
add the hg button customizing the editor. programatically. If you
know
a good light IDE with hg, please inform. Topic handled earlier, still
undecided
http://groups.google.com/group/googl...browse_thread/...
Thanks in advance
Niklas Rosencrantz

NiklasRTZ wrote:
> If you
> know
> a good light IDE with hg, please inform. Topic handled earlier, still
> undecided
> http://groups.google.com/group/googl...browse_thread/...
> Thanks in advance
> Niklas Rosencrantz

WingIDE support Hg, as well as svn, git, and many others.

j

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <niklasro@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear experts,
> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.

I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will compromise
just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you can
get at. Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems to be
capable of working with most source control systems.

--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

Rhodri James wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <niklasro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear experts,
>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>
> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will compromise
> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
> can get at. Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
> to be capable of working with most source control systems.

I prefer the commandline tools, too.

FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/

-- Gerhard

Gerhard Häring <gh@ghaering.de> writes:

> Rhodri James wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <niklasro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear experts,
>>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
>>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
>>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>>
>> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
>> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will
>> compromise

Huh? Cram what? Nothing is crammed into anything. The IDE/Editor is
merely programmed to hook into the external tools

>> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
>> can get at. Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
>> to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
> http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> -- Gerhard

Why would you prefer the command line tools in a shell when the same
tools can be used in a way which makes navigating the output so much
easier? It strikes me as a kind of intransigence. it's a common
misconception that IDEs use their own tools all the time. They
don't. They integrate the very same tools. e.g Why the hell would I drop
to a command line to diff a file with a back version in GIT when I can
do the same in the buffer in emacs with a single hot key? Why would I
pipe the output of compile into a file then open that file when a single
hot key can fire off the SAME compiler and then list the errors in an
emacs buffer and another hot key can take me directly to the source
lines in question? Living in the past has its mements, but really.

e.g I have pylint working live in python buffers. Big time
saver. Similar with C.

On Nov 24, 8:13*pm, Richard Riley <rileyrg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerhard Häring <g...@ghaering.de> writes:
> > Rhodri James wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Dear experts,
> >>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> >>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> >>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>
> >> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
> >> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will
> >> compromise
>
> Huh? Cram what? Nothing is crammed into anything. The IDE/Editor is
> merely programmed to hook into the external tools
>
> >> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
> >> can get at. *Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
> >> to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> > I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> > FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
> >http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> > -- Gerhard
>
> Why would you prefer the command line tools in a shell when the same
> tools can be used in a way which makes navigating the output so much
> easier? It strikes me as a kind of intransigence. it's a common
> misconception that IDEs use their own tools all the time. They
> don't. They integrate the very same tools. e.g Why the hell would I drop
> to a command line to diff a file with a back version in GIT when I can
> do the same in the buffer in emacs with a single hot key? Why would I
> pipe the output of compile into a file then open that file when a single
> hot key can fire off the SAME compiler and then list the errors in an
> emacs buffer and another hot key can take me directly to the source
> lines in question? Living in the past has its mements, but really.
>
> e.g I have pylint working live in python buffers. Big time
> saver. Similar with C.

I sometimes think that the amount of time I spend tweaking emacs to
save my time is more than the time I spend on anything else :-)

But more seriously:
I tried to use emacs with git recently -- it was a sorry experience.
The git.el that comes with git is broken (on windows)
vc was too old for git like systems
dvc is a joke (its supposedly generic for all Distributed Version
Systems -- but everything is couched in terms of tla.
TLA! For heavens sake!
magit would not run on windows and to use egg http://github.com/bogolisk/egg
I must read magit docs.
Finally I decided to stay with what Ive used for the last 25 years --
the shell

NiklasRTZ <niklasro@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access.

Obviously, you didn't try Eclipse with PyDev (<http://www.pydev.org>)
and Mercurial Eclipse (<http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/>)
plugins.
This combination is also available stuffed into one package as
'EasyEclipse for Python' (<http://www.easyeclipse.org>).

Both, pure Eclipse with plugins installed by hand, and EasyEclipse, are
very convenient for python development.



Best regards,

Günther

In article <qqitt6-ke.ln1@spamfence.net>,
"Günther Dietrich" <gd_usenet@spamfence.net> wrote:

>>Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access.
>
>Obviously, you didn't try Eclipse with PyDev (<http://www.pydev.org>)
>and Mercurial Eclipse (<http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/>)
>plugins.
>This combination is also available stuffed into one package as
>'EasyEclipse for Python' (<http://www.easyeclipse.org>).

Correction: EasyEclipse for Python does not contain the Mercurial
Eclipse plugin. That has to be installed by hand in both cases.



Sorry,

Günther

NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no py IDE I found has easy hg access.

ActiveState's Komodo IDE has support for CVS, Perforce, subversion,
bazaar, git and mercurial.

On Nov 23, 11:37*pm, "Rhodri James" <rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear experts,
> > Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> > Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> > repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>
> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single *
> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will compromise *
> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you can*
> get at. *Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems tobe *
> capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> --
> Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

Obvious explainations are commandline is slower and IDEs claim support
(Eric) which may mean it's up2 programmer to add and enable the ui. Or
any binding to enable 1 ui. Emacs sure can.
Thank you

On Nov 24, 2:35*pm, Gerhard Häring <g...@ghaering.de> wrote:
> Rhodri James wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dear experts,
> >> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> >> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> >> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>
> > I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
> > program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will compromise
> > just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
> > can get at. *Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
> > to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial throughhttp://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> -- Gerhard

Good just Eclipse is too much and tested 4,5... python IDE where non
can hg. Just 2 or 3 buttons to drPython with script enables it.

On Nov 24, 3:13*pm, Richard Riley <rileyrg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerhard Häring <g...@ghaering.de> writes:
> > Rhodri James wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Dear experts,
> >>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> >>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> >>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>
> >> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
> >> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will
> >> compromise
>
> Huh? Cram what? Nothing is crammed into anything. The IDE/Editor is
> merely programmed to hook into the external tools
>
> >> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
> >> can get at. *Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
> >> to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> > I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> > FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
> >http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> > -- Gerhard
>
> Why would you prefer the command line tools in a shell when the same
> tools can be used in a way which makes navigating the output so much
> easier? It strikes me as a kind of intransigence. it's a common
> misconception that IDEs use their own tools all the time. They
> don't. They integrate the very same tools. e.g Why the hell would I drop
> to a command line to diff a file with a back version in GIT when I can
> do the same in the buffer in emacs with a single hot key? Why would I
> pipe the output of compile into a file then open that file when a single
> hot key can fire off the SAME compiler and then list the errors in an
> emacs buffer and another hot key can take me directly to the source
> lines in question? Living in the past has its mements, but really.
>
> e.g I have pylint working live in python buffers. Big time
> saver. Similar with C.

true. While not many programmers lint the code.

On Nov 25, 7:28*am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > no py IDE I found has easy hg access.
>
> ActiveState's Komodo IDE has support for CVS, Perforce, subversion,
> bazaar, git and mercurial.

unavailable via synaptic ubuntu karmic repos, presuming its
commercially bound like wing. Boa constructor, PIDA, Eric, drPython
are 4 where all should be configurable for obvious reasons + I like
it.
thanks for anyway prompt reply my friend

On Nov 24, 5:47*pm, "Günther Dietrich" <gd_use...@spamfence.net>
wrote:
> NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access.
>
> Obviously, you didn't try Eclipse with PyDev (<http://www.pydev.org>)
> and Mercurial Eclipse (<http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/>)
> plugins.
> This combination is also available stuffed into one package as
> 'EasyEclipse for Python' (<http://www.easyeclipse.org>).
>
> Both, pure Eclipse with plugins installed by hand, and EasyEclipse, are
> very convenient for python development.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Günther

thank you Günther for the most common recommendation I get (Eclipse)
sure for C(++) eclipse works too and Netbeans just that pure python
obviously closer to this min requirement + fed up with java generally
here for decades moving all to python

On Nov 24, 4:09*pm, rustom <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:13*pm, Richard Riley <rileyrg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gerhard Häring <g...@ghaering.de> writes:
> > > Rhodri James wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <nikla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Dear experts,
> > >>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
> > >>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
> > >>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1..
>
> > >> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
> > >> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will
> > >> compromise
>
> > Huh? Cram what? Nothing is crammed into anything. The IDE/Editor is
> > merely programmed to hook into the external tools
>
> > >> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
> > >> can get at. *Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim)seems
> > >> to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> > > I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> > > FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
> > >http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> > > -- Gerhard
>
> > Why would you prefer the command line tools in a shell when the same
> > tools can be used in a way which makes navigating the output so much
> > easier? It strikes me as a kind of intransigence. it's a common
> > misconception that IDEs use their own tools all the time. They
> > don't. They integrate the very same tools. e.g Why the hell would I drop
> > to a command line to diff a file with a back version in GIT when I can
> > do the same in the buffer in emacs with a single hot key? Why would I
> > pipe the output of compile into a file then open that file when a single
> > hot key can fire off the SAME compiler and then list the errors in an
> > emacs buffer and another hot key can take me directly to the source
> > lines in question? Living in the past has its mements, but really.
>
> > e.g I have pylint working live in python buffers. Big time
> > saver. Similar with C.
>
> I sometimes think that the amount of time I spend tweaking emacs to
> save my time is more than the time I spend on anything else :-)
>
> But more seriously:
> I tried to use emacs with git recently -- it was a sorry experience.
> The git.el that comes with git is broken (on windows)
> vc was too old for git like systems
> dvc is a joke (its supposedly generic for all Distributed Version
> Systems -- but everything is couched in terms of tla.
> TLA! For heavens sake!
> magit would not run on windows and to use egghttp://github.com/bogolisk/egg
> I must read magit docs.
> Finally I decided to stay with what Ive used for the last 25 years --
> the shell

git is easier via commandline than hg. hg wants gears for simple thing
ie. hg commit -m wants spec note, too long to type each commit.