Helmut, On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 16:51 -0700, Helmut Denk wrote: > hallo hans, > > there was a intensive discussion about DVCS > in the groovy mailinglist some weeks ago.
And some of it was good stuff :-) > the overall outcome was - if i remember it right - that > for codehaus-hosted projects it's wise to stay with > svn as long as codehaus does not support DVCS. If the project is a Codehaus project (whatever that means) then yes the mainline for the project really has to reside on the Codehaus system. For now this means Subversion. However just because you have a Subversion mainline doesn't mean you have to use Subversion. In fact I am now strongly of the view that the only time to use Subversion is to take read-only checkouts of very large repositories. In all other situation Bazaar, Git (and possibly Mercurial) are just far better tools for people to use for developing projects -- even where the mainline is a Subversion repository. > i did some minor investigations in DVCS recently ... > > for my company, which uses cvs and cmSynergy today, > my recomandation is, to migrate from cvs to svn, drop > cmSynergy and introduce a DVCS (may be bazaar). > svn would be master and DVCS can be used where > enhanced flexibility is needed (working offline or so). I can see that Subversion after CVS is a seductive solution. I wonder though whether flexibility and adaptivity would be better served by using Bazaar instead of Subversion for the central mainline repository. In the same way that Subversion was always aimed at being a better CVS, Bazaar is aimed at being a DVCS that can be used like Subversion if you have to. Using Bazaar as a client to a central Subversion store is possible, but using Bazaar as a client to a centralized Bazaar store is very much faster (very much!) and given you far more adaptivity. Of course Bazaar is generally more branch based (for project work) where Git and Mercurial are more like Subversion in being repository based. The way Bazaar, Git and Mercurial handle branches and merging is just so much better than that of Subversion. But of course this is only an issue if it is an issue. > decision to drop svn in favour of DVCS may be made > sometimes later ... based on experiences. The trouble is once you make the CVS -> Subversion change it then becomes hard to replace the Subversion at the centre. I would recommend investigating Bazaar at the centre even if you then use it only as a Subversion look alike initially. > bazaar shines esp. with its workflows. but there is a > lack of integration with our set of development-tools > -> eclipse and hudson for instance. OK, this is a serious issue and a potential blocker. Eclipse I think has good and increasingly so support for Bazaar -- there are now two plugins, one is a simply interface to command line using widgets, the other is based on the QBzr widgets which are the one being used in TortoiseBzr. Hudson is a different thing. I guess the thing to do would be to connect Kohsuke Kawaguchi (Hudson person) with the Bazaar team to see what changes couls help integration. Did you have any specific problem in mind? -- Russel. ==================================================== Dr Russel Winder Partner Concertant LLP t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203 41 Buckmaster Road, f: +44 8700 516 084 London SW11 1EN, UK. m: +44 7770 465 077
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
