Just wondering: Is there any plan to move to svn? I would love to have a diff command that works when I am offline :-) Best Regards, Rafael
Rafael, On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:05 -0300, Rafael Espíndola wrote:> Just wondering: Is there any plan to move to svn? I would love to have > a diff command that works when I am offline :-)Its been discussed from time to time. I would like to see this as well, but for an additional reasons: simpler branch management and faster updates, etc. SVN handles directories better and merging head to/from a branch is much easier (no tagging required because it remembers the merges). Unfortunately, this is a pretty big change. The main issues are: 1. retention of original log 2. converting the post-commit scripts 3. Subversion isn't fully distributed and if we're going to change, is SVN really the best choice? Reid.> > Best Regards, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> Its been discussed from time to time. I would like to see this as well, > but for an additional reasons: simpler branch management and faster > updates, etc. SVN handles directories better and merging head to/from a > branch is much easier (no tagging required because it remembers the > merges). >I'm not sure what you mean here by merge tracking but merge tracking in SVN is under development but not yet complete or available in a supported release. Chris
Reid Spencer wrote:> Rafael, > > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:05 -0300, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > >>Just wondering: Is there any plan to move to svn? I would love to have >>a diff command that works when I am offline :-) > > > Its been discussed from time to time. I would like to see this as well, > but for an additional reasons: simpler branch management and faster > updates, etc. SVN handles directories better and merging head to/from a > branch is much easier (no tagging required because it remembers the > merges). > > Unfortunately, this is a pretty big change. The main issues are: > 1. retention of original log > 2. converting the post-commit scripts > 3. Subversion isn't fully distributed and if we're going to change, is > SVN really the > best choice?Look into tailor (http://darcs.arstecnica.it/). It works well with converting repositories as well as running those repos in parallel until the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in mind. Nonetheless, it works rather well. -scooter
> Its been discussed from time to time. I would like to see this as well, > but for an additional reasons: simpler branch management and faster > updates, etc. SVN handles directories better and merging head to/from a > branch is much easier (no tagging required because it remembers the > merges).Yes. This is very nice. Atomic commits are also usefull for finding the patch that introduced or fixed a bug.> Unfortunately, this is a pretty big change. The main issues are: > 1. retention of original log > 2. converting the post-commit scripts > 3. Subversion isn't fully distributed and if we're going to change, is > SVN really the > best choice?I have just created a copy of the llvm-gcc repository using svk and I like it! It should also be easier to move from cvs to svn then to git for exemple.> Reid.Rafael
Hello, Scott.> the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current > version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in > mind.I can confirm, that tailor converts LLVM CVS with all history preserved to mercurial repository without any visible troubles. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.
Reid Spencer <rspencer at reidspencer.com> writes:> Its been discussed from time to time. I would like to see this as well, > but for an additional reasons: simpler branch management and faster > updates, etc. SVN handles directories better and merging head to/from a > branch is much easier (no tagging required because it remembers the > merges).SVN does no keep track of merges.> Unfortunately, this is a pretty big change. The main issues are: > 1. retention of original logNo problem. cvs2svn and tailor will keep full log info.> 2. converting the post-commit scripts > 3. Subversion isn't fully distributed and if we're going to change, is > SVN really the > best choice?Others mentioned svk, which is compatible with svn and is fully distributed. However, if distributed VCS is really interesting for you, I highly recommend Mercurial: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi BTW, tailor works nicely for converting CVS repos to Mercurial. -- Oscar
Anton Korobeynikov wrote:>>the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current >>version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in >>mind. > > I can confirm, that tailor converts LLVM CVS with all history preserved > to mercurial repository without any visible troubles.I'm not sure if I just took HEAD or converted the whole llvm repo. Personally, I like darcs for the atomic theory of patches. YMMV. Nonetheless, I track llvm's repo via tailor and I do keep the history as it evolves. If I were permitted to run a webserver outside the corporate firewall, I'd demonstrate a cvs-svn tailor-ized repo. -scooter