[LLVMdev] moving to svn?

[Scott Michel]

To (mis)quote a colleague, "All version control systems suck, but <foo>
sucks less." (my appologies to Mike Elkins)

darcs works for me. darcs sucks less.

Before this devolves into another "my vcs is is bigger, better, faster
and has whiter teeth" rat hole, I was merely pointing out that there are
ways to convert the current CVS repo intact.

Frankly, converting to svn means that I merely have to edit my tailor
configuration.

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 11/27/06, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote:
> 
>>Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>>
>>>>the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current
>>>>version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in
>>>>mind.
>>>
>>>I can confirm, that tailor converts LLVM CVS with all history preserved
>>>to mercurial repository without any visible troubles.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I just took HEAD or converted the whole llvm repo.
>>Personally, I like darcs for the atomic theory of patches. YMMV.
>>
> 
> 
> DARCS is ridiculously slow on large repositories.
> 
> SVN is usable.
> Mercurial is usable, though if you try to keep a lot branches in a
> single repository space, it will fall down right now because it
> creates at least one file in the repo per file in the tree (this would
> require close to 400k files for gcc , IIRC:P).  This is typical of
> most distributed systems, contrary to the claims that they easily
> support centralized models.
> 
> At least in mercurial, this is easy to fix because of how the
> repository format works (it would probably take about 6  weeks of
> engineer time ).
> 
> Bottom line:
> If your goal is a distributed VCS use Mercurial
> If your goal is a centralized VCS, use SVN
> 
> Bias: I am a subversion developer, and responsible for moving GCC from
> CVS to SVN :)
> 
> I use SVK to track GCC nowadays, and find it quite easy.  However, I
> still don't believe GCC would work in a project if we didn't have a
> centralized server with a single namespace/repository for all
> branches.   This does not, of course, mean it can't be a mercurial
> server in a few years.  :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Nonetheless, I track llvm's repo via tailor and I do keep the history as
>>it evolves. If I were permitted to run a webserver outside the corporate
>>firewall, I'd demonstrate a cvs-svn tailor-ized repo.
>>
>>
>>-scooter
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>LLVM Developers mailing list
>>LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev