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

[Brian Jackson]

On Sunday 25 January 2004 07:00 pm, 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?

Not really any failures keeping it from being considered. The infrastructure 
team wants to support cvs and only 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.

That isn't a dependency any longer, you don't even need to run any extra 
service to use it. It can work perfectly well with just ssh.

>
> 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?

I tried playing with arch when I first started toying with this idea. I didn't 
get very far, mostly because I couldn't find any good docs, and it's a 
complicated piece of software.

--Iggy

>
> -a

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list