From: Daniel A. S. <st...@ic...> - 2006-05-23 14:54:09
|
On 22/05/2006, at 22:55, dr...@hw... wrote: >> Has the decision been made to go for CVS? That is final? We use >> Subversion >> for everything these days and would not consider going back to >> CVS. Why >> the decision to stick with that? > > The purpose of the move is to overcome reliability and > performance problems at SF. A change of CM systems is > a separate and largely unrelated topic. I don't think I agree, if we are switching out large parts of the infrastructure like bug/patch tracking system etc already, why not take the opportunity and switch SCMs at the same time, while everybody's workflow is getting disrupted anyway? I'm not convinced that once everything is setup in a new location there will a lot of motivation to change things around again to move to a new SCM... > If we do move away from CVS, I would recomment that we use > a distributed configuration management system (like monotone > or git or bitkeeper) rather than yet another client/server > system like SVN. IMO the major advantage of SVN over these is precisely its similarity to CVS and its workflow, and that SVN is mature and widely known & used (unlikely some of the distributed systems which to me appear to have almost no docs and to be in a perpetual state of flux...) as an experiment, I've run cvs2svn on the tcl/tk SF repositories, with no problems, the results are here: svn://rutherglen.ics.mq.edu.au/tcltk/ http://rutherglen.ics.mq.edu.au/~steffen/cgi-bin/viewvc/TclTk/ http://rutherglen.ics.mq.edu.au/fisheye/viewrep/TclTk/ BTW, FishEye for CVS is now essentially live (~5 mins delay), thanks to the new repo rsync at SF: http://rutherglen.ics.mq.edu.au/fisheye/viewrep/Tcl http://rutherglen.ics.mq.edu.au/fisheye/viewrep/Tk Cheers, Daniel -- ** Daniel A. Steffen Dept. of Mathematics ** ** Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia ** |