Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
  • Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 11:51:22 -0500

Andrew wrote:
Nearly every other "distributed" scm (mercurial, cogito, fastcst,
bazaar-ng, darcs, etc.) all use the notion of "repository == branch ==
working-tree". That model doesnt work for us *at all*, it works for really
Could you explain it in more details? Perforce model works for us now, and that's as "repository=branch=working copy" as it can get. We did OK for a few years with it.
small projects, and for huge projects like the linux kernel where branches
have official maintainers whose job is mostly to pull in patches from
each other. We dont do that here. The in-between solution is a pqm
(patch-queue-manager, gets patches via email and applies them), which
is quite clunky IMO.

In CVS and Subversion, you can create a branch just by copying a working tree elsewhere, with CVS or .svn directories. It's not declarative enough, and you do have to shuttle patches between them if they are related, but it works. As for patches in the list (or in Bugzilla), I've seen negligible amount of those over the years. Mostly we get defect reports, feature requests, or requests to upgrade, but we seldom get patches. Hence there's no need to manage them. Why would this need materialize suddenly now?

Sergey.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page