On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Bill Wendling wrote:> Perhaps someone could come up with a list of different versioning > software, list the pros and cons, and then we could vote? (Has anyone > mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-)There are a couple reasons we are using CVS still: 1. CVS works and is well understood by all involved. 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't hampered by lack of atomic commits, renames, and better branch facilities). 3. The CVS server is hosted at Illinois. You will have to get buy in from them and a volenteer with access to the machine to do the upgrade work (including converting the post-commit hooks, etc). 4. I maintain that a real distributed VCS would be very useful for LLVM, perhaps moreso than the other features provided by new VCS's. Last time this came up, the available distributed vcs's all had serious issues. Perhaps mercurial is 'there now'. I don't know. Personally, I don't really care which VCS we use. I use SVN with the llvm-gcc stuff and it works fine. CVS works fine. I'm sure that, with enough beating on it, some other system would work fine. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
Hi Chris,> 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't > hampered by lack of atomic commits, renames, and better branch > facilities).If people would like to see the logical `patch set' that made up a CVS commit then cvsps may be useful, or, as others have said, use Tailor to convert to a local repos. in your preferred format. http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/ http://www.darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor> 4. I maintain that a real distributed VCS would be very useful for > LLVM, perhaps moreso than the other features provided by new VCS's. > Last time this came up, the available distributed vcs's all had > serious issues. Perhaps mercurial is 'there now'. I don't know.Bazaar, from Canonical -- the same people as behind Ubuntu, has been concentrating on performance recently. It may be worth keeping an eye on for the future. I expect it will gain quite a large market share over time. http://bazaar-vcs.org/ http://bazaar-vcs.org/RcsComparisons Cheers, Ralph.
Perhaps code.google.com svn? The only thing that can be a problem is the lack of support for commit scripts. On 11/29/06, Ralph Corderoy <ralph at inputplus.co.uk> wrote:> > Hi Chris, > > > 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't > > hampered by lack of atomic commits, renames, and better branch > > facilities). > > If people would like to see the logical `patch set' that made up a CVS > commit then cvsps may be useful, or, as others have said, use Tailor to > convert to a local repos. in your preferred format. > > http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/ > http://www.darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor > > > 4. I maintain that a real distributed VCS would be very useful for > > LLVM, perhaps moreso than the other features provided by new VCS's. > > Last time this came up, the available distributed vcs's all had > > serious issues. Perhaps mercurial is 'there now'. I don't know. > > Bazaar, from Canonical -- the same people as behind Ubuntu, has been > concentrating on performance recently. It may be worth keeping an eye > on for the future. I expect it will gain quite a large market share > over time. > > http://bazaar-vcs.org/ > http://bazaar-vcs.org/RcsComparisons > > Cheers, > > > Ralph. > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Alkis