On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:33:49PM +0200, Alexander Schremmer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:00:09 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
>
> > Op di, 13-06-2006 te 10:27 +0200, schreef Alexander Schremmer:
> >> Bazaar-NG seems to reach limits already when working on
> >> it's own code/repository.
> >
> > Ca
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:27:17AM +0200, Alexander Schremmer wrote:
> Maybe you benchmarked a Tailor deficiency here, but Mercurial scales very
> well. People use it for work on the Linux kernel etc.
> Compared to that, Bazaar-NG seems to reach limits already when working on
> it's own code/reposi
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:00:09 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
> Op di, 13-06-2006 te 10:27 +0200, schreef Alexander Schremmer:
>> Bazaar-NG seems to reach limits already when working on
>> it's own code/repository.
>
> Canonical uses bzr to develop launchpad.net, which is a "little bit"
> larger dan bzr
Op di, 13-06-2006 te 10:27 +0200, schreef Alexander Schremmer:
> Bazaar-NG seems to reach limits already when working on
> it's own code/repository.
Canonical uses bzr to develop launchpad.net, which is a "little bit"
larger dan bzr itself, I suspect...?
--
Jan Claeys
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:31:14 +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> I did partial imports into Mercurial and Bazaar-NG, but I got interrupted
> and couldn't draw any conclusions -- although from looking at the
> implementation, I don't think they'd scale very well at the moment (but that
> could probably
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It would be an important move towards world peace, if it didn't
>> inspire whole new SCM-holy-wars :-) I have a fair bit of experience with
>> different
>> SCM (VC, source control tool, however you want to call them) so I'll
>> take
>> this opportunity
On 6/13/06, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:31:14PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:> First of all, changing SCM means changing how everyone works. Distributed branches is not the only requirement. Oh, I know, no worries about that.
There are also:-- subtree auth
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:31:14PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> First of all, changing SCM means changing how everyone works.
Distributed branches is not the only requirement. There are also:
-- subtree authorization (different access rights in different parts of the
tree); in distributed
On 6/12/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [*] Short? This whole mail was short! I can talk for hours about the benefit
> of proper branches and what kind of stuff is easier, better and more
> efficient with them. I can draw huge ASCII diagrams explaining the
> fundamental difference b
On 6/12/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/12/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Perhaps issues like these should motivate us to consider a differentsource control tool. There's a new crop of tools out that could solvethis by having multiple repositories that can be sy
On 6/12/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps issues like these should motivate us to consider a differentsource control tool. There's a new crop of tools out that could solvethis by having multiple repositories that can be sync'ed with eachother. This sounds like an important mov
11 matches
Mail list logo
