Re: [xine-devel] Please reconsider switching to a different SCM

[Marcelo J. <mar...@gm...>]

On 3/25/07, Darren Salt <li...@yo...> wrote:
> >> That may be, but I just... don't really like it, or at least the way in
> >> which branching tends to be handled. It feels *wrong*.
>
> > Well, I don't want to start a discussion on that topic, but compared to
> > CVS, SVN branching feels a lot *right*. :) Branching and tagging are the
> > same, it is just a matter of convention that you should not commit to a tag
> > directory.
>
> A tag is just a marker in the commit history, and doesn't need to look like a
> branch point; why is it necessary to create a new branch for this?

Simplicity. You achieve the same result with one less concept and a
better repository organization.

> > CVS branching and tagging can be insane.
>
> It's also extremely flexible: you can arbitrarily add files to branches or
> not tag files - hmm, maybe this is the insanity to which you refer. That
> doesn't stop it from being useful, though :-)

More confusing than usefull, but that is a personal opinion. Having a
tag with files from several different existence times for me just
means that they have not existed together before, so why should they
exist in a tag? This is indeed what I ment by "insane branching". A
SVN branch in such a case works like a documentation of what you are
doing. SVN copies are cheap because that is how it is meant to be
used. Anyway, CVS tags are ok for me, as long as I don't have to
manage them. :)

> The only real objections to CVS, IMO, are its lack of atomic commits and its
> lack of useful merging.

Well, IIRC, Diego has complained about CVS branching too, in relation
to ffmpeg stuff. I agree with you about the objections, I just don't
agree about the "only" part of the sentence. The SVN way of
branching/tagging is a conceptual evolution IMHO.

Regards,
Marcelo.