[LLVMdev] Moving CVS Files

Reid Spencer reid at x10sys.com
Tue Nov 15 15:00:43 PST 2005

John Criswell wrote:

> Chris Morgan wrote:
>> Any reason not to upgrade to subversion?  It does a much better job
>> with handling moved or renamed files although svn doesn't actually
>> store a 'move' or a 'rename' as a single versioned operation.
> We discussed moving to another revision control system about a year ago, 
> if I recall correctly.  At that time, we decided not to move to another 
> system.  I don't recall the exact reasons for not switching, but part of 
> it was that CVS is the "standard" revision control system out there 
> (i.e. everyone already has it on their system).  I also recall that, at 
> the time, the cost of switching outweighed the benefits we thought we'd 
> gain.
> Right now, the moving of files doesn't happen often enough to warrant a 
> change in software (IMHO).  I just think that we as a group need to 
> exercise more care when moving files so that we minimize the problems 
> that arise.
> -- John T.

We should probably review this decision at least once a year. If the basis for 
not moving to svn is that "cvs is the standard", that situation is likely to 
change.  Many organizations are now using svn. It is rapidly becoming "the new 
standard".  At some point it doesn't make sense for us to continue with the 
"old standard".  When that situation occurs is up for debate.  I'm just 
contending we should review this once a year because it is a situation that is 
in flux.

My suggestion is that we target it to coincide with the 2.0 release since that 
release could have numerous changes that are not backward compatible and moving 
to svn could be rolled in under that pretext.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list