generally, I have no objections to switch away from svn to another
method, assuming that we do not give up much of the comfort that we have
today, as George mentioned. One question related to that however is,
whether upcoming svn releases would solve some of the issues which we
have today with svn, especially with long-living branches?
George Bosilca wrote:
> After playing with hg and git for few days, I tend to agree with the
> emacs guys. It looks to me that any of them will do the job (as did
> svn). I don't really care which one will be selected by the community as
> long as we:
> 1. Don't spend months in deciding which one to choose.
> 2. Don't loose the nice integration o svn with our TRAC. Independent on
> how good/fast the dVCS is, the way svn integrate with trac is a real
> time saver. Tracking bugs, linking to revisions and to the wiki are
> really important features to me, and I think that whatever our decision
> will be we should not lose this.
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> LWN.net has an interesting article about how Emacs chose a new version
>> control system: <http://lwn.net/Articles/272011/>
>> They were back in the CVS stone ages, but their main contenders were
>> the same big three of distributed VCSs: git, hg and bzr. The article
>> pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The one
>> that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
>> We already know the most important thing about what we will find from
>> a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that each has
>> its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive. Each
>> will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work out
>> well enough.
>> - R.
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list
Parallel Software Technologies Lab http://pstl.cs.uh.edu
Department of Computer Science University of Houston
Philip G. Hoffman Hall, Room 524 Houston, TX-77204, USA
Tel: +1 (713) 743-3857 Fax: +1 (713) 743-3335