2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 <2008> 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 <2008> 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: A modern DVCS would help |
From: | Andrew Johnson <[email protected]> |
To: | [email protected] |
Cc: | [email protected] |
Date: | Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:06:19 -0500 |
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
On Friday 30 May 2008 01:56, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote:However, should we take a serious look at Git?:One disadvantage is that it is poorly supported on Windows (usability and efficiency-wise). I am not sure how critical this point is.
Critical, and as an aside git is apparently rather hard to learn.My current intentions are to convert the existing monolithic CVS repository into a series of Subversion repositories, split up by project. We finally have the infrastructure set up here at APS to support SVN+Trac properly.
*Before* anyone starts on about SVN not being a "modern distributed version control system", take a look at the Bazaar VCS and its bzr-svn plugin from http://bazaar-vcs.org/ which can transparently use SVN repositories and working copies while managing local branches.
The reason I haven't moved forward with SVN yet is because there are quite a number of CVS working copies around the world which this switch-over will affect; I don't want anyone to lose uncommitted changes or cause significant rework, so this switch will need coordination between the core developers and should probably happen just after a release.
I'm also slightly nervous that our CVS repository, whose oldest log messages date back to February 1991, will successfully convert to SVN. The examples that I've tried so far have worked out fine, but they didn't have branches. I'm guessing that we'll be fine, but that's not proven yet.
- Andrew -- Talk is cheap. Show me the code. -- Linus Torvalds