16 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archCurious about SCM choice| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Milo Hyson | Jun 27, 2008 3:05 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 27, 2008 5:55 am | |
| John Baldwin | Jun 27, 2008 6:15 am | |
| Milo Hyson | Jun 27, 2008 7:12 am | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 27, 2008 3:46 pm | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 27, 2008 6:03 pm | |
| Milo Hyson | Jun 28, 2008 1:26 am | |
| Henrik Brix Andersen | Jun 28, 2008 7:53 am | |
| Henrik Brix Andersen | Jun 28, 2008 7:53 am | |
| Robert Watson | Jun 28, 2008 8:05 am | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 28, 2008 4:11 pm | |
| Richard Coleman | Jun 29, 2008 3:55 am | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 29, 2008 5:53 am | |
| Adrian Chadd | Jun 29, 2008 7:46 am | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 30, 2008 4:49 am | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 30, 2008 7:42 am |
| Subject: | Curious about SCM choice | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Richard Coleman (rcol...@criticalmagic.com) | |
| Date: | Jun 29, 2008 3:55:32 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
Milo Hyson wrote:
The only real benefits I saw in distributed systems were private branching and offline work. The former seems like it could be achieved in Subversion by creating semi-private user directories like FreeBSD does. As for the latter, while it's sometimes unavoidable (e.g. working on an airplane) isn't something we really want to encourage.
First of all, I think most of the version control systems had progressed to the point where virtually anything was an improvement over CVS. So I was glad to see FreeBSD make the jump and convert to subversion. It's a good system. So I have no axe to grind there.
The only thing really lacking is a good way to handle local code. The old method of using CVS_LOCAL_BRANCH_NUM is very fragile. How is everyone managing their local code now with the conversion to subversion? This is the only place I miss using hg or bzr.
Richard Coleman rcol...@criticalmagic.com