[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import
From: |
Mark D. Baushke |
Subject: |
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:19 -0800 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <address@hidden> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:22:23PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > BTW, those are design limits, not bugs. They are caused by the way CVS
> > tracks _the_ one vendor branch. The multiple vendor-branch hacks
>
> I see, I've never considered them bugs. Just recently I 'discovered'
> subversion (svn), a cvs like concurrent versioning system that covers
> a lot of those "design limits" cvs has, including the one I've
> originally talked about (and handling copy/move of a file, or an
> entire directory,...).
Yes, svn is a (re)design that tries to avoid some of the limits that
were imposed by the original CVS design decisions. There are some really
good folks working on svn and it is a very interesting project.
> I really think that if CVS doesn't make some big changes in those design
> limits, it will be replaced by svn when its 1.0 version arrives.
Last week (2003-10-23, revision 7497), svn released version 0.32.1. I
think it is likely to be a while before 1.0 is released.
The svn developers are trying some new directions to see how well they
work and I think they are getting good operational experience in use of
their new design. I wish them all well.
CVS is a more mature product and needs to move a bit more conservatively
oriented when considering large changes in how it works. I suspect there
will be a place for cvs even after svn 1.0 is released.
Between now and the release of svn 1.0, I believe it is possible to
address a number of the perceived limitations of CVS, but we need to
determine how such changes fit into the overall way that CVS works
rather than just adding a series of hacks.
If anyone has really thought out a series of changes to CVS that allow
for an evolution into a more useful system, they are encouraged to post
either on address@hidden or address@hidden about them.
Thanks,
-- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE/nXdz3x41pRYZE/gRAsRHAJ9s8vxuG3+Gx9ryKEm/kxHeQ9LhLgCdGaKA
xPYQtfw6tG/RNMjg8J75dEk=
=kXMP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import, Ross Patterson, 2003/10/28
- more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Richard Pfeiffer, 2003/10/28
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Mark D. Baushke, 2003/10/28
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least, Larry Jones, 2003/10/29
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/29
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Tom Copeland, 2003/10/29
- Thx!, Richard Pfeiffer, 2003/10/29