From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 29 03:55:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54042106568A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:55:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcoleman@criticalmagic.com) Received: from smtp-auth.no-ip.com (smtp-auth.no-ip.com [204.16.252.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0D58FC0C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:55:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcoleman@criticalmagic.com) X-No-IP: criticalmagic.com@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from [172.16.0.12] (adsl-074-229-078-253.sip.asm.bellsouth.net [74.229.78.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: criticalmagic.com@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF091AA9E5 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <486702D9.2060204@criticalmagic.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:34:49 -0400 From: Richard Coleman Organization: Critical Magic, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <48647AAD.5040909@FreeBSD.org> <7D28014A-C3FB-4944-95FC-15F299F9AF37@cyberlifelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <7D28014A-C3FB-4944-95FC-15F299F9AF37@cyberlifelabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Curious about SCM choice X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:55:51 -0000 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