Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT sourcemage.org>]

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.