You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> on 2004/06/09 05:47:10 UTC
Version control requirements for GCC
In case nobody but ghudson and me noticed, the GCC project is (again)
looking for something that would replace CVS. Here's the initial post
and thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html
I think we should follow this more closely. We'd have to add a few
features to cover most of this list, but I think that getting the GCC
repository to move to Subversion would be a huge win.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Version control requirements for GCC
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>
>>>In case nobody but ghudson and me noticed, the GCC project is (again)
>>>looking for something that would replace CVS. Here's the initial post
>>>and thread:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html
>>>I think we should follow this more closely. We'd have to add a few
>>>features to cover most of this list, but I think that getting the GCC
>>>repository to move to Subversion would be a huge win.
>>
>>Damn, that's a long list of requirements they've got there...
>
>
> I doubt they're going to find anything that meets all the
> requirements, which means they'll have to drop some eventually.
Yeah, there were some things on their list where I don't know /any/
system that supports it, and no system seems to hit all the high points
AFAIK.
> The emphasis on disconnected commits is a bit surprising. They're
> useful, I just didn't realize they were *that* useful for this
> particular development team.
Well, they mention 'disconnected development', and say that some systems
provide disconnected commits and some don't. I didn't get the
impression that it was a hard requirement.
> (I wonder if Ian considered svk.)
It was mentioned in one of the follow up posts, but I don't think it was
really considered a serious contender at this point.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Version control requirements for GCC
Posted by Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>.
On Jun 9, 2004, at 1:07 PM, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>>> In case nobody but ghudson and me noticed, the GCC project is (again)
>>> looking for something that would replace CVS. Here's the initial post
>>> and thread:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html
>>> I think we should follow this more closely. We'd have to add a few
>>> features to cover most of this list, but I think that getting the GCC
>>> repository to move to Subversion would be a huge win.
>>
>> Damn, that's a long list of requirements they've got there...
>
> I doubt they're going to find anything that meets all the
> requirements, which means they'll have to drop some eventually.
Well of course, but we can dream, can't we :)
>
> The emphasis on disconnected commits is a bit surprising. They're
> useful, I just didn't realize they were *that* useful for this
> particular development team.
We are a weird bunch :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Version control requirements for GCC
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> > In case nobody but ghudson and me noticed, the GCC project is (again)
> > looking for something that would replace CVS. Here's the initial post
> > and thread:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html
> > I think we should follow this more closely. We'd have to add a few
> > features to cover most of this list, but I think that getting the GCC
> > repository to move to Subversion would be a huge win.
>
> Damn, that's a long list of requirements they've got there...
I doubt they're going to find anything that meets all the
requirements, which means they'll have to drop some eventually.
The emphasis on disconnected commits is a bit surprising. They're
useful, I just didn't realize they were *that* useful for this
particular development team.
(I wonder if Ian considered svk.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Version control requirements for GCC
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Branko Čibej wrote:
> In case nobody but ghudson and me noticed, the GCC project is (again)
> looking for something that would replace CVS. Here's the initial post
> and thread:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html
>
> I think we should follow this more closely. We'd have to add a few
> features to cover most of this list, but I think that getting the GCC
> repository to move to Subversion would be a huge win.
>
Damn, that's a long list of requirements they've got there...
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org