Roland Mainz wrote:
After these two projects sorted out I think it would be safe to
phase out svn repo in favor of mercurial.
I disagree here - IMO it would be nice to have two parallel repositories
as "official opensolaris.org" solution - one "mercurial" and one
"subversion" with a way to sync in both directions. For example many
tools support "subversion" (usually second afer CVS) but "mercurial"
support appears to be non-existant - neither BugZilla nor code scanners
(e.g. things like Coverity) have "mercurial" support or even plan to
support it right now... and locking users of such tools out would IMO a
quite huge loss.
AFAICT, the only way to sync in either direction is via patch files. I
don't see the value in syncing from Subversion to Mercurial (at least
for ON - since the ON SVN repository at svn.genunix.org doesn't have the
history granularity that Hg has). Whether Cyril wants to figure out how
to sync from Mercurial->Subversion is up to him I suppose. But I
suspect it's not worth the legwork.
There will not be an "official" Subversion repository for ON. There is
only one repository, and that is the Mercurial onnv-gate.
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
