| 1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: [Thu Mar 30 2006, 07:40:47AM EST] |
| 2 |
> Is there a concensus out of this thread, on the topic of |
| 3 |
> a distributed VCS? :) Preferrably from devs who will actually want |
| 4 |
> overlays? :) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I don't think there's a consensus really, but here's what I'd suggest |
| 7 |
based on what people have said: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In a nutshell, all three of darcs, git and mercurial are powerful and |
| 10 |
suited to the task. Darcs is clearly controversial. It has momentum |
| 11 |
because it's already used by the haskell team's overlay. But its |
| 12 |
reliance on ghc, which doesn't work on mips and is a non-system |
| 13 |
dependency, means that it's not favored for more general overlays. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think we might be best to try three revision control systems to |
| 16 |
start: darcs, git and subversion. Three seems like a lot, but each |
| 17 |
has its reason, and we can anticipate darcs being used primarily by |
| 18 |
the haskell team rather than for overlays in general. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Regarding the question of mercurial vs. git, I previously recommended |
| 21 |
mercurial over git. At this point other devs have made the case for |
| 22 |
git, so I'm happy to give it a try. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
How does this go over? :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Aron |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives