llvm dev - May 2004 - [LLVMdev] Open Source Contributions (was Re: Benchmarks)

Chris Lattner wrote:
> The more I've thought about this, the more that I'm beginning to
realize
> that CVS is the root of the problem.  Perhaps it is time for LLVM to
> seriously start looking at switching over to a decentralized version
> control system?  I really am not "up" on the various options, but
I've
> heard rumars that there are now several good options.
>
> Take 'arch' for example: its approach seems like it would solve
almost all
> of the version control issues that we are facing, and supports
> decentralized development in particular.  From what I understand, you
> would be able to do all of your development on your own "local"
branch,
> others could have access to it, and when it's ready, we could pull it
in
> as one big patch or set of changes.
There are a couple of problems. First, arch is not portable to Windows. Are 
you really sure nobody will port ALVA (or parts of it) to that platform?

Second, local repository is fine, but what if two persons ever decide to work 
on the same branch?

- Volodya

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Take 'arch' for example: its approach seems like it would
solve almost all
> > of the version control issues that we are facing, and supports
> > decentralized development in particular.  From what I understand, you
> > would be able to do all of your development on your own
"local" branch,
> > others could have access to it, and when it's ready, we could pull
it in
> > as one big patch or set of changes.
>
> There are a couple of problems. First, arch is not portable to Windows. Are
> you really sure nobody will port ALVA (or parts of it) to that platform?
Arch was just one example.  :)  I'm not familiar with Alva, what is it
(google isn't particularly helpful)?
> Second, local repository is fine, but what if two persons ever decide to
work
> on the same branch?
I believe that arch allows you to do this kind of thing:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/tutorial/shared-and-public-archives.html#Shared_and_Public_Archives

... but again, I haven't really spent the time to look into revision
control systems in any detail.

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/

Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > Take 'arch' for example: its approach seems like it would
solve almost
> > > all of the version control issues that we are facing, and
supports
> > > decentralized development in particular.  From what I understand,
you
> > > would be able to do all of your development on your own
"local" branch,
> > > others could have access to it, and when it's ready, we could
pull it
> > > in as one big patch or set of changes.
> >
> > There are a couple of problems. First, arch is not portable to
Windows.
> > Are you really sure nobody will port ALVA (or parts of it) to that
> > platform?
>
> Arch was just one example.  :)  I'm not familiar with Alva, what is it
> (google isn't particularly helpful)?
Actually, that's ALVA is what my spellchecker made from LLVM :-(. I meant:
if
LLVM is ported to Windows, then arch will become a problem.
> > Second, local repository is fine, but what if two persons ever decide
to
> > work on the same branch?
>
> I believe that arch allows you to do this kind of thing:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/tutorial/shared-and-public-archives.ht
>ml#Shared_and_Public_Archives
Right, but you'd need HTTP/FTP server. Not a problem for *me*, but lots of 
folks are behind firewalls and can't do that.
> ... but again, I haven't really spent the time to look into revision
> control systems in any detail.
Ok.

- Volodya