This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A couple more subversion notes
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Cc: giovannibajo at libero dot it, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:46:26 -0200
- Subject: Re: A couple more subversion notes
- References: <10510201452.AA24064@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Oct 20, 2005, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> I'm very concerned that we're greating increasing the barrier to entry for
> work on GCC. cvs is very intuitive and simple to use.
The same can be said of svn, so it's not like a great barrier increase.
> I'm not seeing the same thing for svn/svk, but instead a series of
> increasingly complex suggestions on how to do things efficiently.
Make that *more* efficiently. AFAIK svn is much more efficient than
cvs by default in all cases, except for disk space use. I suppose if
you feel strongly about duplicate copies of files in your tree,
there's always hardlink and similar solutions, which will then require
more discipline from you in not accidentally modifying the -base
files. Yes, that's yet another complex suggestion to make svn even
more efficient, but you're not *required* to use any of them.
> Saying "casual developers of GCC can use snapshots" is not something I think
> we ought to be doing.
Totally agreed. Fortunately, installing svn in such a way that it
works fine by default is pretty easy, and that leaves room for
additional efficiency improvements that might not even be possible
with cvs.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}