[LLVMdev] Open Source Contributions (was Re: Benchmarks)
ghost at cs.msu.su
Wed May 5 01:02:01 PDT 2004
Reid Spencer wrote:
> > Take 'arch' for example: its approach seems like it would solve almost
> > all of the version control issues that we are facing, and supports
> > decentralized development in particular. From what I understand, you
> > would be able to do all of your development on your own "local" branch,
> > others could have access to it, and when it's ready, we could pull it in
> > as one big patch or set of changes.
> I've looked at subversion recently. Setting it up wasn't a big deal but
> its much more complicated than CVS (e.g. you have to get a specific
> version of Berkley DB). Also, there are enough problems with it that I
> deem it unstable. The last thing we need is a buggy SCC system. I think
> Subversion is a good choice (functionality wise), it just isn't quite
> ready yet. Perhaps by release 1.2 or so the main issues will have
> settled down. I haven't looked at arch but I will.
I think the decision is up to the developers, but I'd just like to note that
your opinion of Subversion is not the only one. In particular, we've being
using it at work for something like year (yes, long time before 1.0 was
released), and haven't run into any significant problems.
Maybe it means that right decision requires some experimenting.
More information about the llvm-dev