SVN v1.5 has completely revamped how they do merging -- it is supposed
to be much mo' betta (although I have not tried it myself). The whole
business of needing to track what you have already merged on a long-
lived branch has been eliminated; in this way, SVN v1.5 will be much
more like git/hg/bzr.
However, a key difference over SVN will still be that git/hg/bzr are
*distributed* VCS's, where SVN is still *centralized*. Several of us
have been using distributed workarounds to SVN for a while (e.g.,
using git, hg, or svk as a gateway to the centralized SVN server);
having a true distributed VCS could be quite nice. There are other
advantages, too, such as publishing arbitrary temporary or research
branches (perhaps even on your own server; you don't need to sign the
OMPI 3rd party contrib agreement to get commit access to our server)
that aren't ready for prime-time, etc.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
generally, I have no objections to switch away from svn to another
method, assuming that we do not give up much of the comfort that we
have
today, as George mentioned. One question related to that however is,
whether upcoming svn releases would solve some of the issues which we
have today with svn, especially with long-living branches?
Edgar
George Bosilca wrote:
After playing with hg and git for few days, I tend to agree with the
emacs guys. It looks to me that any of them will do the job (as did
svn). I don't really care which one will be selected by the
community as
long as we:
1. Don't spend months in deciding which one to choose.
2. Don't loose the nice integration o svn with our TRAC.
Independent on
how good/fast the dVCS is, the way svn integrate with trac is a real
time saver. Tracking bugs, linking to revisions and to the wiki are
really important features to me, and I think that whatever our
decision
will be we should not lose this.
george.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
LWN.net has an interesting article about how Emacs chose a new
version
control system: <http://lwn.net/Articles/272011/>
They were back in the CVS stone ages, but their main contenders were
the same big three of distributed VCSs: git, hg and bzr. The
article
pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The
one
that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
We already know the most important thing about what we will find
from
a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that
each has
its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive.
Each
will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work
out
well enough.
- R.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Edgar Gabriel
Assistant Professor
Parallel Software Technologies Lab http://pstl.cs.uh.edu
Department of Computer Science University of Houston
Philip G. Hoffman Hall, Room 524 Houston, TX-77204, USA
Tel: +1 (713) 743-3857 Fax: +1 (713) 743-3335
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
