> > I would like to put in a suggestion for Mercurial instead of SVN. This > > also might make for an easier transition since it looks like the > > FreeBSD > > guys made a CVS to Mercurial mirror program they are using to > > mirror the > > FreeBSD CVS. > > > > http://hg.fr.freebsd.org/
Thanks for the reminder, I'd like to add that this work was very well documented in: http://ns2.freenix.org/~roberto/paper.pdf http://ns2.freenix.org/~roberto/slides.pdf nice to see that it's in place. Another enlightening discussion is the xorg move from CVS to git: http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html Of course svn is the most "natural" (smooth) migration path from CVS: it has been made for this. > Thanks for the suggestion. I've passed this onto our architecture > team to ensure that they take it under consideration. Note that the internal choice of SCM tool and the external one are two different problems. External tool choice problem is (probably much) easier, basically anything (even CVS/cvsup or old fashioned snapshots) should fill the requirements. Maybe what would help, would be to have identifiers for the snapshots inside the code to be able to determine which release/snapshot has a specific issue and which have not. Last point, as already discussed here, this has been done with svn for Debian (BTW, packages just entered unstable, congrats!), but I don't know what additional amount of work would be needed to integrate the snapshots (some packages already do this, e.g. emacs-snapshot). -- solofo _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
