On Wed, 5 May 2004, Oscar Fuentes wrote:> Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> writes: > > > Why do you really need distributed development? The possible problems with > > centralized development are > > 1. The server might be often down. > > 2. There's too much number of active branches, so nobody understand what's > > going on. > > 3. You can't commit while you're on a plane. > > Replace 3 with "You have no permanent internet connection, or you are > behind a firewall, so you can not access the server at all (no diffs, > no logs, nothing)".And #4: it makes permissions on the server much easier to deal with.> BTW, before considering arch too seriously, you should check how > mature/stable it is. Last time I heard about it, Tom Lord was pleading > for help and funding to finish Arch.Yes, I think that Tom Lord is the single biggest problem with Arch. :) OTOH, Arch is now a gnu project, so perhaps its better now. I any case, everything that I know about it is dated. :)> OTOH, Subversion is just a sane CVS. No distributed repositories. > > With CVS, some people keep a copy of the main repository on their > local computers. That's what some gcc developers do. They rsync from > time to time with the remote repository. I don't know how serious > the incoveniences are with this approach.Yeah, that's a solution, but it's such a hack! :)> BitKeeper, due to its license, is a no-no, IMHO.Agreed. -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/
Do you have the DS graph dot file for Olden-power? --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On May 5, 2004, at 11:11 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Wed, 5 May 2004, Oscar Fuentes wrote: > >> Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> writes: >> >>> Why do you really need distributed development? The possible >>> problems with >>> centralized development are >>> 1. The server might be often down. >>> 2. There's too much number of active branches, so nobody understand >>> what's >>> going on. >>> 3. You can't commit while you're on a plane. >> >> Replace 3 with "You have no permanent internet connection, or you are >> behind a firewall, so you can not access the server at all (no diffs, >> no logs, nothing)". > > And #4: it makes permissions on the server much easier to deal with. > >> BTW, before considering arch too seriously, you should check how >> mature/stable it is. Last time I heard about it, Tom Lord was pleading >> for help and funding to finish Arch. > > Yes, I think that Tom Lord is the single biggest problem with Arch. :) > OTOH, Arch is now a gnu project, so perhaps its better now. I any > case, > everything that I know about it is dated. :) > >> OTOH, Subversion is just a sane CVS. No distributed repositories. >> >> With CVS, some people keep a copy of the main repository on their >> local computers. That's what some gcc developers do. They rsync from >> time to time with the remote repository. I don't know how serious >> the incoveniences are with this approach. > > Yeah, that's a solution, but it's such a hack! :) > >> BitKeeper, due to its license, is a no-no, IMHO. > > Agreed. > > -Chris > > -- > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ > http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/ > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Vikram S. Adve wrote:> Do you have the DS graph dot file for Olden-power?Here you go: /home/vadve/lattner/Writings/006-Masters-Thesis/figs/power.dot -Chris> --Vikram > http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ > > On May 5, 2004, at 11:11 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Oscar Fuentes wrote: > > > >> Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> writes: > >> > >>> Why do you really need distributed development? The possible > >>> problems with > >>> centralized development are > >>> 1. The server might be often down. > >>> 2. There's too much number of active branches, so nobody understand > >>> what's > >>> going on. > >>> 3. You can't commit while you're on a plane. > >> > >> Replace 3 with "You have no permanent internet connection, or you are > >> behind a firewall, so you can not access the server at all (no diffs, > >> no logs, nothing)". > > > > And #4: it makes permissions on the server much easier to deal with. > > > >> BTW, before considering arch too seriously, you should check how > >> mature/stable it is. Last time I heard about it, Tom Lord was pleading > >> for help and funding to finish Arch. > > > > Yes, I think that Tom Lord is the single biggest problem with Arch. :) > > OTOH, Arch is now a gnu project, so perhaps its better now. I any > > case, > > everything that I know about it is dated. :) > > > >> OTOH, Subversion is just a sane CVS. No distributed repositories. > >> > >> With CVS, some people keep a copy of the main repository on their > >> local computers. That's what some gcc developers do. They rsync from > >> time to time with the remote repository. I don't know how serious > >> the incoveniences are with this approach. > > > > Yeah, that's a solution, but it's such a hack! :) > > > >> BitKeeper, due to its license, is a no-no, IMHO. > > > > Agreed. > > > > -Chris > > > > -- > > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ > > http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/