1 |
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> Alexandre Buisse wrote: |
3 |
> >The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1]. The three finalists |
4 |
> >were bazaar[2], mercurial[3] and git[4], and the winner was eventually |
5 |
> >mercurial. This is also the recommended choice from the EuroBSDcon |
6 |
> >slides, so definitely something to consider. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Indeed, although EuroBSDcon didn't even analyze git, just mentioned it |
9 |
> in passing. It also seems that we have a fair lack of expertise relating |
10 |
> to it, but there has been no shortage of contributions about subversion |
11 |
> and git, at least. |
12 |
|
13 |
I think we have a pretty good bit of expertise with using git here :) |
14 |
|
15 |
I use it from everything from storing config files, my mbox archive, |
16 |
papers and articles, and yes, Linux kernel development. |
17 |
|
18 |
And I've been playing around with the tools that Keith Packard used to |
19 |
convert the X project, as well as having the advantage of talking at |
20 |
length with him all about the issues that they had in converting over. |
21 |
|
22 |
git is the most under-sold tool out there today. It is by far, the most |
23 |
powerful and flexible source code control tool ever made, and I've used |
24 |
just about every one out there before. It's not something that I say |
25 |
lightly. |
26 |
|
27 |
That being said, is it right for us? Who knows, as no one has really |
28 |
said what they want to do with a different SCM. |
29 |
|
30 |
> The problem I had with the opensolaris testing is that they didn't seem |
31 |
> to do any direct comparisons between the SCMs -- they were all isolated |
32 |
> and based on a requirements doc. This makes it difficult to easily |
33 |
> figure out how they balance out. |
34 |
|
35 |
I agree, but who really cares about opensolaris anyway :) |
36 |
|
37 |
thanks, |
38 |
|
39 |
greg k-h |
40 |
-- |
41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |