Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues with using Subversion or arch for kernel development

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Brian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel
>>>trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch,
>>>and others isn't either).
>>
>>Once you decide to dump CVS, backward compability and user familiarity are
>>removed as relevant problems.  What are the other obstacles to using
>>Subversion or arch?
>
>
> I really am interested in seeing the technical merits and failures of some
> of the systems discussed without reference to the political issues.
>
> What are the failures of Subversion and/or arch?

svn: a bit slower is the only argument i've found against it (use it myself) 
and of course "it isnt CVS"

> To my mind, the web server dependency of subversion was a negative because
> I was always dealing with small projects.  However, I could see where
> bundling this stuff up into a webserver could be a bonus for a large
> project who already maintains their own web server.

Subversion DOES NOT, have a webserver dependency, alot of people think this is 
true and vote against it based on that (actually the webserver arrangement 
totally kicks ass) but if you dont like it just use what you currently use with 
  CVS, subversion over ssh or svn+ssh:// not http(s)://, you can even use the 
standalone svnd but you are far fron required to do so, its optional but nobody 
says you have to, the reson most people do it because its simply the best way 
to do it.

> arch used to have the problem of some absolutely abysmal performance
> because it was just a bunch of shell scripts.  However, it has evolved
> quite a bit and had some C code rewrites.  What other issues are there
> with using it?
>
> -a
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list