This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Notes from the version control BOF at the summit

* Walter Landry:

> Florian Weimer <> wrote:
>> * Walter Landry:
>> >> * The tool must be around for a while, and continue to be supported
>> >>     We don't want to have to change again, at least not for a while.
>> >
>> > Define "a while".  Has svk been around "a while"?
>> No, it's still experimental technology.  Even tla is still in this
>> category.
> That seems like you're ruling out almost all of the free version
> control systems.  You'll only be left with Aegis and Vesta, which
> probably won't work for other reasons.
> Or when you say experimental, do you mean experimental work-flows?

I mean "experimental" as in "simply aborts for some common usage
errors, without supplying a proper diagnostic, and leaving behind
something in horribly inconsistent state".  Things have already
improved for common codepaths, though.

In addition, I've got a hunch that arch is conceptually on the right
track, but has got a few design warts that cannot be addressed without
giving up backwards compatibility.

> Subversion has a lot of new code, but the work-flow is basically the
> same as CVS.

It's mainly an implementation issue for me, not the work-flow per se.

tla has many nice features (including its merge tracking), and I can
teach people the new command set, but I don't want to annoy them with
tla internals to a point at which they can manually recover from most
errors on their own.  And I'm not always around to do it for them.

Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]