From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 31 16:29:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC08B16A418 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:29:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: from mired.org (bhuda.mired.org [66.92.153.74]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A57F13C44B for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:29:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 11300 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2008 16:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mbook.mired.org) (192.168.195.2) by 0 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2008 16:02:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:02:37 -0500 From: Mike Meyer To: "Adrian Penisoara" Message-ID: <20080131110237.06860561@mbook.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <78cb3d3f0801302245v2183c613t6ecdd9acebbe9ef7@mail.gmail.com> References: <78cb3d3f0801302245v2183c613t6ecdd9acebbe9ef7@mail.gmail.com> Organization: Meyer Consulting X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i386-apple-darwin8.10.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:13:22 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OT] Q: what would you choose for a VCS today X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:29:25 -0000 On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:45:55 +0200 "Adrian Penisoara" wrote: > Side-topic, if you bear with me: if you were to choose again what to use > as source revision control system (VCS) from today's offerings, what would > you choose to maintain FreeBSD's sources or a side-off project tracking > FreeBSD as base that would allow better teams cooperation and easy code > merging between projects/branches ? Pretty much any post-CVS VCS will do that. But if you want a good merge facility, Perforce's are - well, after getting used to them, everything else feels like throwing your code against the wall and hoping the right parts stick. I talked to one of the git developers about a year ago, and they were thinking about adding a guided merge inspired by what Perforce does. > For the moment I am thinking that the top contenders would be Bazaar and > Mercurial but I would like to know other (developer) opinions. I last looked at distributed VCS systems about a year ago, and at the time liked Mercurial. The technology seems like it would be great for a project like FreeBSD. However, best practices for using them were still being worked out, and I'm not sure I'd want to commit a long-term project to one under those conditions. For a centralized VCS systems I've checked, perforce is the best of the post-CVS systems (and the only one that doesn't leave turds in the build tree). Subversion is a close second, but is still a little rough around the edges. Most notably, merge tracking is in the 1.5 beta builds, but not in the production code. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.