[LLVMdev] Moving CVS Files

[Chris Lattner]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Reid Spencer wrote:
> 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.

Basically, at the time, there was not enough of a compelling reason to 
warrant the change.  We don't use branches heavily (which is a source of 
CVS performance pain) and we don't move files often.  Further, I still 
have hope that distributed source control systems will improve in 
usability, stability and performance to the point where we can consider 
using one.

In short, switching source control systems because there is something new 
and sexy out there isn't a compelling thing to do.  There should be a real 
reason to do so, and it should solve real problems for us (outweighing 
the costs of a change).  Finally, we definitely don't want to switch 
twice.

> 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.

I don't see that waiting for a 2.0 release is needed if/when we want to 
change.  Further, I'd be perfectly happy if "2.0" was just "1.9" + ".1"... 
i.e. I don't see a great need for destabilizing or 
non-backwards-compatible changes to LLVM.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/