| 1 |
>> Reading comparisons is one thing and using is the other. But the thing |
| 2 |
>> is, gentoo ends up with central repository, anyway. Provided the |
| 3 |
>> repository is less ancient than CVS (which is basically subversion), |
| 4 |
>> distributed users can branch it without having to have commit access. |
| 5 |
>> This hybrid model makes much more sense to me than forcing everyone to |
| 6 |
>> use DSCM. I have exercised the approach on overlay before I was granted |
| 7 |
>> commit access and now continue to work the same way pushing my branches |
| 8 |
>> back to svn. I think this possibility totally invalidates the very idea |
| 9 |
>> of DSCM importance. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> This makes a lot of sense. Since there are people who offer facilities, |
| 12 |
> perhaps a good answer is "Please set up a mirror of our anoncvs as this |
| 13 |
> will enable quicker disaster recovery." That would give redundancy for 98% |
| 14 |
> of the material, as noted, and is easily done. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Just a few notes. I wasn't even talking of mirroring stuff, but if we |
| 17 |
mention that, it worth noting that there has to be a central repository |
| 18 |
otherwise it's not clear what to mirror ;-) Also, unfortunately, the |
| 19 |
scenario described, iirc, doesn't work for CVS, but works well for |
| 20 |
subversion, which seems to be the most viable alternative to CVS and in |
| 21 |
my opinion suits the nature of tree very well, because of preserving |
| 22 |
history across copies (that is, e.g. `svn cp ebuild-0.ebuild |
| 23 |
ebuild-1.ebuild`). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Love, |
| 27 |
H |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives