On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 15:03 -0800, Brad Roberts wrote: [ . . . ] > 1) the history of the current source is a mess. > a) lack of tags for releases > b) logical merges have all been done as individual commits
Any repository coming to DVCS from CVS or Subversion will have much worse than this :-((( In the end you have to bite the bullet and so "let's do it, and repair stuff later if we have to". > 2) walter's workflow meaning that he'll won't use the scm merge > facilities. He manually merges everything. At a guess I would say that this is more an issue that CVS and Subversion have truly outdated ideas about branching and merging. Indeed merging branches in Subversion seems still to be so difficult it makes a shift to DVCS the only way forward. > None of this is really a problem, it just becomes a lot more visible when > using a system that encourages keeping a very clean history and the use of > branches and merging. And no rebasing! At the risk of over-egging the pudding: No organization or project I have knowledge of that made the shift from CVS or Subversion to DVCS (Mercurial, Bazaar, or Git) has ever regretted it. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
