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 1EoVIV-0007hQ-4O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:24:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBK0MtBu016624; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:22:55 GMT Received: from mail.tar.bz (s175249.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [220.157.175.249]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBK0KNwA027106 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:20:24 GMT Received: (qmail 3073 invoked by uid 89); 20 Dec 2005 00:20:22 -0000 Received: from ss.fbks.jp (HELO ?10.1.5.67?) (kalin.smtp%tar.bz@10.1.5.67) by dorf.tar.bz with ESMTPA; 20 Dec 2005 00:20:22 -0000 Message-ID: <43A74DB4.7040504@thinrope.net> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:17:56 +0900 From: Kalin KOZHUHAROV <kalin@thinrope.net> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051219) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's References: <43A70D98.7070504@gentoo.org> <1135027076.28875.11.camel@localhost> <20051219213810.GA9392@ferdyx.org> <20051219215544.GD18849@butchest.cubesearch.com> <623652d50512191435x2209a2f6p@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <623652d50512191435x2209a2f6p@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 OpenPGP: id=26BE7385 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7e5b11d6-fc4d-40d4-aad2-bb3903fd1089 X-Archives-Hash: d670b21ee97c97ba13560d93300c3171 Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 19/12/05, Peter Johanson <peter@peterjohanson.com> wrote: > >>Or maybe not, I dunno. The point being I don't think we should immediately write off >>any of the distributed SCMs without pondering how they might make a difference or be usable. > > > It would be very useful for people who aren't devs but only if they > have access to the repository. It would also be useful for devs to > have a standard way of publishing their testing/development portage > overlays. On the first point, would any of the alternative SCMs prove > to be better than CVS resource wise for providing anonymous access to > users? It might also be useful to facilitate non-devs contributing > patches to the tree - rather than posting files into bugzilla they > could point towards whereever they publish their current tree (or > changes), and developers can then work with their changes directly > instead of the bugzilla upload/download dance we do now. I am using subversion for a year now, both for work, personal data, system administration (~/, /etc/ on most machines) and gentoo development (my overlay). Migrated from CVS that was used only for some code repositories. It felt like changing a Trabant for Subaru (substitute your fav. rally car)! Because of the ease-of-use and flexibility of access (ssh, https) I started using it everywhere (See good article "My life in subversiion"). As far as speed is concerned, it is comparable with CVS. Storage-space-wise, it takes about twice the space because a pristine copy of every file is held locally (this allows diffs, reverts, etc. to be done from the local copy, so the server is not contacted). Branching/merging is logical, svn:externals is very useful to import other repositories in place. Currently lacks owner:group and permisosons storage, but can be implemented as a wrapper. Compared to CVS, it is a clear winner in my opinion. And learnig curve is steep. Just my 2 yen. Kalin. -- |[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]| +-> http://ThinRope.net/ <-+ |[ ______________________ ]| -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list