Re: preliminary version control requirements

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry%piermont.com@localhost>]

"Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv84%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
> While all of these are valid points, I think it is more important to
> focus on the *repository format* than on the features provided by the
> user interface of a specific VCS.
[...]
> See: http://keithp.com/blogs/Repository_Formats_Matter/

A lot of that article is a (good, IMHO) general discussion of version
control choices rather than a discussion of format per se. It *does*
discuss formats extensively, but that's not the bulk of it.

I note that Keith (correctly, IMHO) notes that systems like git may be
used for centralized management (much like NetBSD does already) as
well as for distributed management. X development continues to be
central like NetBSD's style, but uses git.

> The former cannot be changed for existing systems, but missing UI
> features are something that, iff the repository format supports
> them, can be eventually added.

Well, SVN has undergone several repository format changes, so it isn't
quite true that the repository format can't be changed. I'd say better
that "architecture matters", and that if something isn't currently
implemented but is architecturally feasible you're better off than if
it is flat out infeasible.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger                perry%piermont.com@localhost