From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EptiW-0008BY-Ge for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:40:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBNKduqg010168; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:39:56 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBNKc7X6025993 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:38:07 GMT Received: from c83-251-211-193.bredband.comhem.se ([83.251.211.193]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1Eptfy-0000Wg-Kp for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:38:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's From: "Spider (DmD Lj)" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200512232034.59772.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <43A70D98.7070504@gentoo.org> <43A9C100.40007@gentoo.org> <200512232034.59772.pauldv@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-XEb5xhmMiu0GV46AA3RG" Organization: Gentoo Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:38:21 +0100 Message-Id: <1135370301.1873.3.camel@Darkmere.darkmere> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 X-Archives-Salt: e76884b9-047a-4f86-a6eb-d8cb2c6240a7 X-Archives-Hash: 50e3a777af8385d2a5c28bfa42b868e0 --=-XEb5xhmMiu0GV46AA3RG Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 20:34 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Thursday 22 December 2005 08:13, Bret Towe wrote: > > On 12/21/05, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts ov= er > > > > to other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't fi= nd > > > > the info anywhere in my archives. > > > > > > > > Could whoever's got it, post it? > > > > > > > > I'm particularly interested in hearing about CVS, SVN, mercurial, > > > > bazaar, darcs. > > > > > > I've downloaded a copy of the gentoo-x86 repo and will run tests myse= lf. > > > Please advise me as to exactly which tests you would like to see, bey= ond > > > whatever I feel like doing. > > >=20 > Also look at usability of the system. From my perspective, arch/tla is no= t=20 > that easy to use. Cvs and subversion are better.=20 Add to this that tla is constantly misreporting and has a tendency to mess up repositories. For example, " I screwed up, rm file, checkout" doesn't work with arch... You get a friendly "your repository is pristine" .... .=20 Right. After screwing around with tla and tlx, their hideously annoying tag and branch names (sheesh) their overabundance of {} and the braindeadness of being unable to verify that my tree is really exactly the same as any other person is seeing, I cannot speak strongly enough against this. Git, seems useful, but a bit hard to track ( I really dislike having to fibble around with long random characterstrings just to check out a certain version. I can deal, but still....) Mercurial, last I checked, was still rather fragile. Fast, decent, but fragile. :( svn I haven't tried, actually. Although in current terms, it seems to be a good replacement from how we work and what we do with things. //Spider --=20 begin .signature Tortured users / Laughing in pain See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=-XEb5xhmMiu0GV46AA3RG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDrGA9ZS9CZTi033kRAgzVAJ9J/HiKlTqVbZRQnGyoNe0DkyH9GwCfd3UI ZOwonnvdXaHoVhQyyVzEr2Q= =MlVF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-XEb5xhmMiu0GV46AA3RG-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list