I agree with George and Edgar. I would further add the notion that
whatever we decide upon should also work well with MTT. A lot of the
support tools for Open MPI are tied to the notion of a continuously
increasing 'r' number (MTT, nightly tarballs, Trac?, ...), so we
should be careful moving to something that does not have something
I'm also not fully convinced that a switch away from Subversion is
necessary. I think I still need to be convinced that the notion of
switching isn't a solution looking for a problem. Is Subversion really
that bad? How much effort will it take to convert to something new
[e.g., change all the support tools, educate all developers, ...]? I
think that answers are that Subversion is not really that bad (and may
get better in upcoming releases), and it will take quite a lot of work
to switch to something else.
At the end of the day if the community decides on something else then
I'll convert, but I guess I'm still not fully understanding the
motivation behind the need to switch.
Just my two cents,
On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
> 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
> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The
>>> that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
>>> We already know the most important thing about what we will find
>>> a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that
>>> each has
>>> its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive.
>>> will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work
>>> well enough.
>>> - R.
>>> devel mailing list
>> devel mailing list
> Edgar Gabriel
> Assistant Professor
> 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
> devel mailing list