On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 09:46 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 08:24 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > So far I've heard of 3 devs trying the bzr tree, main concern has been > > 'high' memory use (80MB) during initial pull, and that 1.0 is not all > > that wide spread in stable distribution releases. > > > > I'd like to get feedback (or an explicit 'its fine') from hno, alex and > > duane specifically before I suggest that we have consensus and are ready > > to set a date for making CVS readonly and doing a final conversion. > > IMHO, we should wait until bzr 1.x is widely spread and, hence, better > tested and documented. With folks pushing for Squid 3.1 release soon and > a few large branches not integrated yet, I would rather not spend time > on learning a new VCS and struggling with relatively immature software. > > Thank you,
Like all products bzr moves and advances; I would not classify it as relatively immature because of its recently reaching '1.0' - it got labelled 1.0 to reflect its maturity rather than immaturity. I can appreciate the time argument about learning a new VCS, but there will always be large branches pending integration; there have been large branches outstanding the entire time I've been involved with squid; so I don't think that that reason is a good one to delay; in fact, the sooner one converts to a VCS that does good merging, the easier integration of branches becomes. If there are specific things about the migration proposal, or capabilities that are a problem - I will happily let this VCS discussion rest until they are resolved. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
