1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
5 |
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400 |
6 |
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were |
9 |
>> discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around |
10 |
>> using data from outside sources. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Alec Warner's test results are here, of course: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml |
15 |
|
16 |
I've looked at this just now and in the past and at the last thread in which this was discussed |
17 |
(http://marc.info/?t=116855132300001&r=1&w=2) and |
18 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/soc/glep-0052.txt and there doesn't seem to be any hard data |
19 |
which can be used to base an informed decision on. Things like git not supporting partial syncs were |
20 |
brought up as being too painful for non-broadband users and disagreed with |
21 |
(http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=116918412629635&w=2). You can find some more issues like this in |
22 |
the entire thread. Furthermore only git and svn (svk) seem to have been investigated and it is |
23 |
unclear which versions were used. If you believe, like me, that non-distributed SCMs are broken, |
24 |
then this leaves only git (and svk but "It is certainly not the optimal distributed VCS solution."). |
25 |
|
26 |
These were the reasons I decided to look and see what other infos could be had on the internet. Of |
27 |
course it is hard to come up with good measures of performance and I've certainly found very little |
28 |
hard data. |
29 |
|
30 |
So in light of all that I don't think it is wasteful to restart this discussion. |
31 |
|
32 |
Of course not everyone is yet convinced that non-distributed SCMs are broken, so perhaps it would be |
33 |
good if I ask the following question _here_ instead of privately. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
Chris, |
37 |
if I am to continue my plan of producing frequent releases of minimal amd64 install cd, then it |
38 |
would probably help if I can use some versioning control and you might be interested in having easy |
39 |
access to any changes I make. How can we achieve both? I believe the stuff I'm interested in is in |
40 |
some CVS repository. As I see it I have the following options: |
41 |
|
42 |
1) get commit access to the repository and start a branch in there. Merging may not be too hard, I |
43 |
don't really know. However CVS commit access is not something that is given lightly. It would vice |
44 |
versa also mean that you would have commit access to my stuff, which I might not like. |
45 |
|
46 |
2) file bugs with patches attached. But maybe you just want to forget about releases until 2007.1 |
47 |
comes along once 2007.0 is finished. |
48 |
|
49 |
3) fork the code or convert the repository into a repo of my own. Even if I choose to use the same |
50 |
kind of repo (CVS in this case), then how hard will merging be? Again, this goes both ways. |
51 |
|
52 |
I hope I missed something here, but of the three the third looks the most appealing and likely with |
53 |
me forking into darcs probably. I don't think this issue would be here if the code were in a |
54 |
distributed SCM, but maybe by the time 2007.1 is due I will have amassed enough interesting changes |
55 |
that it is easier for you to then just clone my distributed repo ;P. |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
So can we please discuss what distributed SCM is best for the tree or likely to be in the future and |
59 |
what hard data obtained with what tests should be gathered to rank SCMs and what feature differences |
60 |
there are and how much we should care about them? |
61 |
|
62 |
Marijn |
63 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
64 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) |
65 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
66 |
|
67 |
iD8DBQFGDi9op/VmCx0OL2wRArS/AKDGGC74l6xMFStjt3wS6PcOlTj/9wCdGwuR |
68 |
8evRaXm3V8G7WWfUaC9luNM= |
69 |
=XPYE |
70 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
71 |
-- |
72 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |