I agree with George and Edgar. I would further add the notion that
whatever we decide upon should also work well with MTT. A lot of the
support tools for Open MPI are tied to the notion of a continuously
increasing 'r' number (MTT, nightly tarballs, Trac?, ...), so we
should be careful moving to something that does not have something
like that.
I'm also not fully convinced that a switch away from Subversion is
necessary. I think I still need to be convinced that the notion of
switching isn't a solution looking for a problem. Is Subversion really
that bad? How much effort will it take to convert to something new
[e.g., change all the support tools, educate all developers, ...]? I
think that answers are that Subversion is not really that bad (and may
get better in upcoming releases), and it will take quite a lot of work
to switch to something else.
At the end of the day if the community decides on something else then
I'll convert, but I guess I'm still not fully understanding the
motivation behind the need to switch.
Just my two cents,
Josh
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
