Steve Long wrote: > Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> My personal view (not infra) on it, is that I'm mostly negative about >> changing VCS at all - I would prefer not to change, because the status >> quo works very well as it is. If a change is going to be made, it should >> be taken as a chance to resolve as many different issues at one time as >> possible, and for that reason I favour GIT over SVN. >> > <noob alert> I'm looking for a distributed SCM atm, and have come down to > git, bzr, svn or arch. (darcs looks nice but adds haskell dependency.) I'd > really like to know which one gentoo-devs prefer and why (without starting > a flame- if this is OT then np.) I'm leaning to git simply because it's > used for the kernel, which seems like a project that would really stretch a > VCS. >
As others have pointed out, SVN isn't distributed but it's very stable and very user friendly (much more than git imho, but YMMV). KDE migrated to svn about a year ago, and Gnome folks did it too a few weeks ago. One thing that might bite us when doing any migration (svn, git, whatever) is the CVS data. Because atomic commits don't exist in CVS, the scripts rely on commit/modification dates to recreate atomic commits in svn/git. Unfortunately, in some not-so-rare cases, it can definitely mess things up, and Gnome folks took about 6 months to get rid of these issues. In any way, I think it'd be best to contact admins from Gnome/KDE/FreeDesktop/kernel/... to see how to handle issues on the server side, eg : - git uses very little space but a lot of CPU - svn uses a lot of disk space - <add your favorite statement here> Are those statements true for portage? Do they actually matter for us? *Conclusion* We'd need to try a migration of snapshots to see how much load it would be to migrate gentoo-x86 from CVS onto something else. Cheers, Rémi PS, my daddy's SCM can beat the crap out your daddy's SCM anytime! ;) -- [email protected] mailing list
