| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:30:56 +1200 |
| 6 |
> Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@××××××××××××.nz> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> There are plenty of ways of doing that, most of which don't involve |
| 8 |
>>> the huge cost of having to use a horrible version control system... |
| 9 |
>> I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on the meaning of your |
| 10 |
>> use of "cost" and "horrible" in the above sentence? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Distributed systems don't work well with Gentoo's current development |
| 13 |
> model, which is entirely centralised. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Our current development model is restricted by our current SCM. Having code managament in local |
| 16 |
copies seems to me an essential feature. This goes double for people who don't have commit access to |
| 17 |
our repositories. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> There are also issues of |
| 20 |
> performance and stability, both of which were discussed at length the |
| 21 |
> last time this topic came up... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I thought performance was one of the reasons for moving away from CVS. Anyway. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I've been reading some SCM comparisons and there are three systems which I think are the best |
| 26 |
candidates for moving to: git, mercurial and darcs. These are the three fastest and most capable |
| 27 |
SCMs. Git is still the fastest but mercurial and darcs are not far behind. Darcs has the best |
| 28 |
merging capabilities probably due to its being based on a solid mathematical foundation; patch algebra. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Marijn |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFGCkOvp/VmCx0OL2wRAi6mAJ91JvMdHOa8m55bXaKBs8n3T9ZThgCfaqcW |
| 36 |
K86k6wGAFCIVFJoxg48SS3s= |
| 37 |
=CCx2 |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives