Hello, After releasing stable 0.8 revision (not done yet, but we are making progress), I intend to switch from Arch to another SCM.
I reread previous thread on the subject (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.politics.organizations.demexp.devel/599) and my short list is: - Subversion (aka SVN). +: "standardized", well documented, a lot of third party software, works well under windows (with TortoiseSVN). -: need a central repository and I can't setup one on linux-france.org. Frédéric, would it be possible to setup an SVN server (svn+ssh, or https) on your machine[1]? - SVK: +: same as SVN, plus not centralized. -: stable enough? - Mercurial: +: not centralized, seems to be quite fast, works on windows. -: does not handle empty directory, not very well known. I'm really in favor of Subversion or Mercurial. Other ditched SCM: - Darcs: I don't like its commutable patch theory; - GIT: Linux specific, doesn't work under Windows, badly documented, eats disk space; - Monotone: slow (?) (Well, maybe I should consider Monotone) Feel free to give you comments and opinion, especially if you have used one of those SCM (or another one). I'm using Subversion at job, so I know it. The only way to evaluate an SCM is to use it (make branches, merges, etc.). However, if one knows people having SCM comparison *on code*, i.e. not a feature list, I would be eager to read them. Best wishes, d. [1] I'm wondering if performances (more exactly bandwidth) would be acceptable. What about backup? _______________________________________________ Demexp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/demexp-dev
