[LLVMdev] moving to svn?

[Chris Lattner]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Bill Wendling wrote:
> Perhaps someone could come up with a list of different versioning
> software, list the pros and cons, and then we could vote? (Has anyone
> mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-)

There are a couple reasons we are using CVS still:

1. CVS works and is well understood by all involved.
2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't
    hampered by lack of atomic commits, renames, and better branch
    facilities).
3. The CVS server is hosted at Illinois.  You will have to get buy in from
    them and a volenteer with access to the machine to do the upgrade work
    (including converting the post-commit hooks, etc).
4. I maintain that a real distributed VCS would be very useful for LLVM,
    perhaps moreso than the other features provided by new VCS's.  Last
    time this came up, the available distributed vcs's all had serious
    issues.  Perhaps mercurial is 'there now'.  I don't know.

Personally, I don't really care which VCS we use.  I use SVN with the 
llvm-gcc stuff and it works fine.  CVS works fine.  I'm sure that, with 
enough beating on it, some other system would work fine.

-Chris

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