Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

[Spider (DmD Lj)]

On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 20:34 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 22 December 2005 08:13, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/21/05, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> wrote:
> > > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over
> > > > to other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find
> > > > the info anywhere in my archives.
> > > >
> > > > Could whoever's got it, post it?
> > > >
> > > > I'm particularly interested in hearing about CVS, SVN, mercurial,
> > > > bazaar, darcs.
> > >
> > > I've downloaded a copy of the gentoo-x86 repo and will run tests myself.
> > > Please advise me as to exactly which tests you would like to see, beyond
> > > whatever I feel like doing.
> >
>
> Also look at usability of the system. From my perspective, arch/tla is not
> that easy to use. Cvs and subversion are better.

Add to this that tla is constantly misreporting and has a tendency to
mess up repositories.

For example, " I screwed up, rm file, checkout"  doesn't work with
arch...  You get a friendly "your repository is pristine" .... . 

Right.


After screwing around with tla and tlx, their hideously annoying tag and
branch names (sheesh) their overabundance of {}  and the braindeadness
of being unable to verify that my tree is really exactly the same as any
other person is seeing,   I cannot speak strongly enough against this.

Git, seems useful, but a bit hard to track ( I really dislike having to
fibble around with long random characterstrings just to check out a
certain version. I can deal, but still....)

Mercurial,  last I checked, was still rather fragile. Fast, decent, but
fragile. :(

svn I haven't tried, actually. Although in current terms, it seems to be
a good replacement from how we work and what we do with things.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end