Garrett D'Amore writes: > > IMO this is not a good idea unless _lots_ of tools get Mercurial support > > (which AFAIK won't happen since Mercurial is a very very rare SCM and > > commercial products will likely demand lots of $$$$ for adding such a > > feature). > > > > Just jumping in here. But a few thoughts. > > One, why is continued SVN support still required? What commercial > tools are needed that don't have Hg support? > > It really, really seems like we do ourselves a disservice by having two > (or, as is the case today, three!) different SCMs. I think Hg can do > pretty much everything any of the others can, and is becoming more and > more "less rare".
The problem that having multiple answers introduces is code rot: if we add support for some SCM system that we're not actively using, then the code for it will rot over time. It'll stop working as the tools are maintained, and it'll just become an attractive nuisance -- and make maintenance and testing more difficult. As someone who has made a few minor changes things under $SRC/tools, I can say that making it more difficult to test shouldn't be a goal. I see no problem with adding support for things that we're actively using, particularly in transition, but given that we're not moving towards SVN, I don't see the point. Perhaps the real problem is that GNU emacs is all the IDE I'll ever need, so I just don't get the tool concern. ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
