[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: The essential problems of moving from CVS
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 09:46:13AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > Any system that has rename, atomic commits, sane branches, and
> > fast tagging is going to appeal to a lot of people, more still if
> > it supports disconnected operation; my guess is that we'll end up
> > adopting the first one that comes along with no major downsides.
> Well, that's SVN with SVK. I suppose the downside is the perceived
> instability of it. But this is, essentially, a decision, at the very
> least, not to seek some of the advantages a DVCS could give us. Which is
> fine, but I'd like to see that admitted explicitly, rather than implied.
Eh? svk has all svn's problems (which are not limited to just
stability) plus it isn't maintained any more.
But I don't understand this claim; rejecting some particular instance
of distributed SCM because that instance has currently insurmountable
technical problems is not "a decision not to seek the advantages".
> > Hee. But it would be more accurate to say "from CVS to
> > git/mercurial/monotone/whatnot or maybe subversion or maybe write our
> > own".
> Right. So I'm trying to narrow that down a bit.
The current status is that no available system is suitable, so if you
rule one out because it's not suitable then you end up ruling them all
out. Therefore, we can either shut this list down and forget the whole
thing, which would be silly, or sit and wait and not rule anything out
in the hopes that one of them will advance to the point of usability.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |