[LLVMdev] Version Control Upgrade?

[Alkis Evlogimenos]

On Monday 10 January 2005 11:29, 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
> > all be out of luck. With a peer-to-peer we'd just switch to the most
> > relevant/up-to-date other repository. This also allows you to take the
> > repository with you when you travel and still be able to
> > commit/diff/checkout while not connected to a network. When you get back
> > you can synchronize with the rest of the world and all your commits will
> > be rolled into the other repositories. Note that Subversion has limited
> > support for this via the svn-push and SVN::Mirror utilities. These
> > essentially keep two repositories in synch. Not sure how scalable that
> > is.
>
> How important do you (and others) feel this feature is?

This allows two very important (IMO) features:
a. You can work offline.
b. Experimenting on new ideas (research?) is easier as you can create private 
branches (the local copy of the repository). With private branches you can 
have version control of the local changes you are making which is very 
important especially if the change is pretty big.

Note that as an added benefit,  this model of VC makes it easier for people 
with read access only to contribute to llvm.

-- 

Alkis