[LLVMdev] Version Control Upgrade?

[Chris Lattner]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, John Criswell wrote:
>> 5. CVS doesn't support distributed development well. Tools such as Arch
>> and Monotone work on a peer-to-peer basis. No one computer is "the
>> repository". If the CVS server should ever go down (heaven forbid), we'd

...

> How important do you (and others) feel this feature is?

I see this as being a pretty big deal.  This is exactly the situation 
Morton is in for example.  I also experience this when travelling: I end 
up building up a whole bunch of changes in a local checked out tree.  When 
I get back to net access, I have to tease all of the patches apart or 
(more commit) just commit a big blob, losing the individual changes.

With a distributed system, I could perform all of the standard operations 
(commits, diffs, etc) remotely, then apply all of teh change sets to the 
main repo when I get net access.

>> 6. Authorization. Arch/Monotone/Subversion/Perforce all have fine
>> grained authorization (permission) features. CVS does not. This means we
>> can't say, "user xyz is given write access only in lib/System" .. we
>> either give them write access to the whole repository (or a module) or
>> not at all.
>
> Agreed, but has this posed a serious enough problem (or do we forsee it 
> becoming a serious problem)?  I tend to doubt that we'll be segmenting access 
> to various pieces of the LLVM codebase.

I don't see this as being a big deal.  Having per-module access control is 
enough, at least so far.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/