>> The oversight group has been kicking around the idea of getting a better >> version control system than CVS. The problem is, we're not quite sure what >> "better" means. So, we thought we'd ask your opinions. > > I think before we begin discussing which software to use, we should discuss > what is really wrong with CVS (on a day to day basis) and how important it is > to fix it (and I apologize if it has been discussed; I just haven't seen it > discussed in this thread).Considering that everyone is managing just fine with cvs, anything discussed about the differences between cvs and *X* is not a show stopper. -Tanya
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 09:34, Tanya Lattner wrote:> > Considering that everyone is managing just fine with cvs, anything > discussed about the differences between cvs and *X* is not a show stopper.I would have used the term "coping just fine" with cvs. Yeah, it works. But, is it productive? efficient? easy? fast? .. none of those. There are better alternatives and that's why we're discussing it. Don't forget that the experience with CVS in Russia and even Seattle is QUITE different than in the same building as the CVS server.> > -Tanya > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050110/b608b63e/attachment.sig>
>> Considering that everyone is managing just fine with cvs, anything >> discussed about the differences between cvs and *X* is not a show stopper. > > I would have used the term "coping just fine" with cvs. Yeah, it works. > But, is it productive? efficient? easy? fast? .. none of those. There > are better alternatives and that's why we're discussing it. Don't forget > that the experience with CVS in Russia and even Seattle is QUITE > different than in the same building as the CVS server.CVS is not so horrible slow that its not possible to get anything done. And i think coping is a very harsh word.. most people are using it just fine. And you really should not generalize and assume that I work in the same building as the CVS server since you really don't know. The main benefit to cvs is that everyone knows how to use it. Most people even have it installed by default. If you go and change from cvs to some other software, you are going to put up another barrier for people to overcome before joining llvm. Learning llvm is a big enough task in itself and contrary to what you may believe.. its not globally known yet. Switching to something at this stage in the game is premature and an uncesssary headache. In my personal opinion, subversion is better with its features. But I'm skeptical to its stability since its so young. Waiting awhile to switch would give it a chance to mature and for the community to start switching over. -Tanya> >> >> -Tanya >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >