[LLVMdev] Version Control Upgrade?

[John Criswell]

Morten Ofstad wrote:
> John Criswell wrote:
> 
>> I think before we begin discussing which software to use, we should 
>> discuss what is really wrong with CVS (on a day to day basis) and how 
>> important it is to fix it (and I apologize if it has been discussed; I 
>> just haven't seen it discussed in this thread).
> 
> 
> I turned down the priviledge of having write access to the CVS because 
> of problems with the software. I will describe the root cause of the 
> problem: We are also using CVS locally, and I need to have the LLVM 
> version that we use with our project as part of our CVS so we can tag it 
> when we make releases. Since I also want to sync with the LLVM 
> repository, I have to have two copies of LLVM and manually copy files 
> across. At some point I managed to copy also a CVS directory across and 
> when I tried to check in to our own repository I was actually checking 
> in to the LLVM repository. Luckily I did not have write access.

You might be able to make this process a little easier by using a 
"vendor" branch in your tree and grabbing our sources using "cvs export."

So, you'd do something like:

cvs -d <our CVS repository> export llvm
cvs -d <your CVS respository> import llvm

... and then merge the LLVM changes from the vendor branch into your 
mainline branch.

I'm just summarizing the process here, so please see the CVS manual 
(https://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs-1.11.18/cvs_13.html#SEC103) for 
all the exact details.

Being able to sync from multiple repositories would still be better, though.
:)

> 
> If I could have write accesss only to the win32 directory tree it would 
> be OK since our local version should match the official version for this 
> part of the tree, and I'm actively working on it and submitting patches 
> to the mailing list. But CVS does not let you have different priviledges 
> for different parts of the source tree (at least I don't know how to set 
> it up).
> 
> The other clear deficiency of CVS is that it's not possible to sync the 
> local version with several repositories, I believe the version controls 
> systems which claim to support distributed development support this kind 
> of scenario.
> 
>  > So, what exactly are people finding wrong with CVS on a day to day
>  > basis, and is it important enough to fix it (fixing it will mean that
>  > users will need to download a new program to use the repository, which
>  > is a disincentive to using LLVM)?
> 
> There you have it, this is what I find wrong with CVS on a day to day 
> basis. If it's important enough to fix it is up to the oversight 
> comittee to decide ;-) By the way, the LLVM _users_ are supposed to use 
> the releases which are distributes as tarballs, and have no need to 
> access the repository - The way I see it, it's the contributors who will 
> need to download a new program...

Actually, all of our bug fixes are only available in CVS (until the next 
release), so most regular LLVM users will need to update from the 
repository to get bug fixes, even if they're not committers.

-- John T.

> 
> m.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev