This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc branches?
From what I hear, arch is a much more visisionary and conceptually
powerful framework. However, the "engineering" is lacking. So we
have a choice between:
* Sticking with CVS.
* Switching to Subversion, once it is solid enough.
This is basically an "improved CVS".
* Switch to arch (after making it suitable).
* Switch to bitkeeper (not an option for gcc).
So the choice (in say a year or so) is between subversion or arch.
I suspect it will be subversion, just because subversion has had more
resourches put into making it a solid, eficient, maintainable and
"production quality".
It would be nice to make arch equally "production quality", but
that takes a lot of work. I hope you can find volunteers to do
that work. Perhaps "stealing" as much code from subversions may
be worth considering. I.e. merge the ieads of arch into the
framework of subversions? (I say this without know either code-base,
so it probably doesn't make sense.)
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/