On Jan 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Barker wrote: > > hmmm. Everyone posting so far seems to be positive on this idea, but I'm > > not so sure. A few thoughts: > > > > 1) change is bad. It may be worth it, but this decision needs to be made > > very differently than if we were starting from scratch. > > > > 2) apparently svn merge sucks compared to other merge technology. svn > > (and cvs before it) is the only system I'm used, and yes, merging is > > painful, but I have to say that it appeared to be painful because it's a > > very hard problem. Can anyone comment on why these other systems seem so > > much better? Does it have anything to do with Centralized vs. > > Distributed at all? > > Tangentially, yes. DVCSes need to keep track of more information in order to > be > distributed. That information is extremely useful for managing merges > properly. > Centralized systems could track this information, but they don't *need* to in > order to be functional, so they mostly haven't, yet. > > For each revision, the DVCS knows what revisions it derives from. SVN does not > keep this information. SVN primarily just knows the text diffs from revision > to > revision. In particular, if I have a long-lived branch, I am going to merge in > changes from the trunk while I'm working on it. When I go to merge the branch > back into the trunk, I need to know which trunk-revisions I've already merged > into the branch. SVN does not track this information. Tools like svnmerge.py > track some of this information at the expense of some added clumsiness. > > It's worth noting that SVN 1.5 will be tracking such information. But that > release is a long ways off. > My understanding, but I do not follow svn much, is that in 1.5, you will only get what svnmerge gives you today.
David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
