| 1 |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Brian Jackson wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel |
| 6 |
> > trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch, |
| 7 |
> > and others isn't either). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Once you decide to dump CVS, backward compability and user familiarity are |
| 10 |
> removed as relevant problems. What are the other obstacles to using |
| 11 |
> Subversion or arch? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I really am interested in seeing the technical merits and failures of some |
| 14 |
of the systems discussed without reference to the political issues. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What are the failures of Subversion and/or arch? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To my mind, the web server dependency of subversion was a negative because |
| 19 |
I was always dealing with small projects. However, I could see where |
| 20 |
bundling this stuff up into a webserver could be a bonus for a large |
| 21 |
project who already maintains their own web server. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
arch used to have the problem of some absolutely abysmal performance |
| 24 |
because it was just a bunch of shell scripts. However, it has evolved |
| 25 |
quite a bit and had some C code rewrites. What other issues are there |
| 26 |
with using it? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-a |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives