Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:31:52AM -0500, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> Don't want to start the debate on SCM here but I'm following the 
> mercurial and monotone mailing lists and my personal opinion is that 
> they have yet to mature. I use Subversion (over https) and Perforce 
> every day and I would prefer Subversion without reservations, because I 
> think that going to the server for *everything* is a serious 
> architectural error. Arch and any other tools I don't know anything 
> about, so I can't comment.
> So, from maturity and utility standpoint, my choice would be Subversion 
> (unknowns such as arch to be investigated). I believe the key objection 
> to Subversion is that it doesn't allow "local commits." I never tried an 
> SCM software that has such feature so I have no idea why it's required.

No, the key objection to Subversion is that its branches don't remember
merges between each other, which causes conflicts on repeated merges,
which we basically do once every few minutes in p4.
 
> Karsten Behrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:02:25 -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > [...]
> >   
> >> Switch our SCM to something(s) other than perforce for everything.
> >>
> >> Who thinks this is worth it?  Who thinks it's not worth it?
> >>     
> >
> > This last point is the show-stopper for me.
> > I do not want to use some crappy SCM just so "we're free". Yes,
> > we have been looking for alternatives. And yes, this is another
> >   
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> 

-- 
Arwed v. Merkatz                              Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
                                                    http://www.sourcemage.org