> 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.I have used darcs to work with psi. It looks like a very clean design, but currently it is a very anemic implementation IMHO. I constantly find myself trying to find out how to do a relatively simple task. Git is fast and has a lot of features, but eats hard disk for lunch :-) In the end, I think that the best option now would be to move to svn. If we want to move to another SCM system latter on, the move should be much simpler then the cvs -> svn move. Another wonderful feature of svn: each commit generates a single email to llvm-commits :-)> 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. > > > -scooterRafael
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? :-) -bw On 11/28/06, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:> > 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. > > I have used darcs to work with psi. It looks like a very clean design, > but currently it is a very anemic implementation IMHO. I constantly > find myself trying to find out how to do a relatively simple task. > > Git is fast and has a lot of features, but eats hard disk for lunch :-) > > In the end, I think that the best option now would be to move to svn. > If we want to move to another SCM system latter on, the move should be > much simpler then the cvs -> svn move. > > Another wonderful feature of svn: each commit generates a single email > to llvm-commits :-) > > > 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 > > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
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? :-)From the maker of SLOCCOUNT: http://dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html Nick
I vote for staying with CVS or moving to SVN, but there's just not that much wrong with the CVS repository now that warrants switching. Offline diffing would be nice, but is not crucial to development. As for random non-cvs, non-svn version control systems, I'm casting a "no" vote since that would require that I install yet more software and learn yet another version control system. Nate On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:06 AM, 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? :-) > > -bw > > On 11/28/06, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I have used darcs to work with psi. It looks like a very clean >> design, >> but currently it is a very anemic implementation IMHO. I constantly >> find myself trying to find out how to do a relatively simple task. >> >> Git is fast and has a lot of features, but eats hard disk for >> lunch :-) >> >> In the end, I think that the best option now would be to move to svn. >> If we want to move to another SCM system latter on, the move >> should be >> much simpler then the cvs -> svn move. >> >> Another wonderful feature of svn: each commit generates a single >> email >> to llvm-commits :-) >> >>> 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 >> >> Rafael >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
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/
On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Bill Wendling wrote:> (Has anyone > mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-)I'm not certain if this was a serious suggestion. Probably not. I'll actually comment on this one because we actually do use BitKeeper in my research group. It's a great tool, but it is not free anymore for open-source projects. Branching and merging is a breeze in BitKeeper, has atomic commits, changesets, is completely designed for distributed development (a developer has complete access to all version control information on their local checkout of the repository without being connected to the Internet), and so on. It also costs a lot, probably more than any version control software out there. Although I cannot disclose how much we pay for it (and we have an academic license), if you came up with a figure in your head and multiplied it by two that would probably be far less than how much it costs to pay for a 1 year lease of BitKeeper. That said, it is a great tool.