[LLVMdev] Open Source Contributions (was Re: Benchmarks)
reid at x10sys.com
Sun May 2 12:37:02 PDT 2004
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 09:54, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Okay, I agree that dealing with a buggy SCC system is a bad idea. :) Does
> subversion support distributed development?
I think subversion will be an excellent choice when its ready. It
supports distributed development very well. It is CVSish (existing CVS
users will find it familiar). It handles branching and check-in much
more cleanly. For example, a check-in gets a revision number, not the
individual files. So, the entire set of what you checked in is retained
as a logical unit of work. To support authentication and access control
it has a plug-in to Apache HTTP Server so all the nice things about a
web server are available as well.
> Okay, but one of the nice things about the distributed systems is that
> branches don't need to be on the "central" machine. You can do all of
> your development on a local branch (which you can optionally share with
> others) and then when it's time, the entire branch can be trivially merged
> back to mainline, preserving the revision history.
You can do this with Subversion and to some extent with CVS (the
"sharing" a branch thing is tricky in CVS).
> Vikram makes a good point, though: we don't want to unnecessarily raise
> the bar of LLVM development to include having to get a non-standard SCC
> system... hrm.
Yup. subversion will be easy for existing CVS users. That's one of its
major design goals.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the llvm-dev