Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:34:49 -0400 From: Richard Coleman <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious about SCM choice Message-ID: <486702D9.2060204@criticalmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <7D28014A-C3FB-4944-95FC-15F299F9AF37@cyberlifelabs.com> References: <E2C84A13-15E7-4BFE-B44F-A4C27966188C@cyberlifelabs.com> <48647AAD.5040909@FreeBSD.org> <7D28014A-C3FB-4944-95FC-15F299F9AF37@cyberlifelabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Milo Hyson wrote: > The only real benefits I saw in distributed systems were private > branching and offline work. The former seems like it could be achieved > in Subversion by creating semi-private user directories like FreeBSD > does. As for the latter, while it's sometimes unavoidable (e.g. working > on an airplane) isn't something we really want to encourage. First of all, I think most of the version control systems had progressed to the point where virtually anything was an improvement over CVS. So I was glad to see FreeBSD make the jump and convert to subversion. It's a good system. So I have no axe to grind there. The only thing really lacking is a good way to handle local code. The old method of using CVS_LOCAL_BRANCH_NUM is very fragile. How is everyone managing their local code now with the conversion to subversion? This is the only place I miss using hg or bzr. Richard Coleman rcoleman@criticalmagic.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?486702D9.2060204>