[LLVMdev] Moving CVS Files

[Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe]

Chris Lattner wrote:

> 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.

I can give my reason for wanting a switch ... I can't access CVS from 
behind the firewall, so can't check out source code. Newer systems are 
usually distributed in nature, and use more accessible protocols such as 
http and ftp for checking source out. A better SCM system, would 
definitely allow me to access the live LLVM tree regularly.

About moving files, even if its not happening often enough, the effects 
might be painful enough to warrant a change. One fine day, people might 
look around and suddenly realise that the project is so large that these 
side-effects become important ...

> 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.

Dunno if you intended this as a request for comments, but usually, 
"major.minor" version numbers are well understood, and a good practice 
to adhere to. When 1.9 changes to 1.10, no one would notice ... but 2.0 
always makes people sit up and take a look.

Sameer.
-- 
Research Scholar, KReSIT, IIT Bombay
http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~sameerds/