[LLVMdev] Version Control Upgrade?

[Morten Ofstad]

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.

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...

m.