sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote
- From: Pieter Lenaerts <e-type AT sourcemage.org>
- To: "sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:45:30 +0100
Op wo, 15-03-2006 te 09:32 -0800, schreef Andrew:
> svn is still centralized, in other words, theres still "the
> svn server". So that wouldn't fix one of perforce's major downsides, which
> is that when the server goes down, we're stuck. We can still edit files
> (as with p4) but cant submit, share easily, etc. I for one am really
> nervous about having all our revision history on a central server. Yes,
> we do have our own changelogs for mostly everything. And yes, we have good
> backups on our web-machine and Im sure the sys-admins in the group will
> make sure things are disaster-resistent. But it still makes me nervous.
I think this is of course a good reason to go for distributed forced
with a central repository. The main concern then becomes the size of the
repositories imo. Can we somehow get an estimate on the size of the
grimoires + their history? I'm a bit afraid that this would put a
serious burden on diskspace for gurus, but I don't know just how big it
would be...
> --- onto alternatives
>
> Bzr is pretty nice, looking at the competition it's definitly at the
> front of the pack right now. I was following their development for a
> while but stepped away for a while. The main issues I found with it
> boiled down to lack of a remote submits. They seem to at least have a
> push command now which might be enough to eliminate that issue. The only
> other thing that comes to mind is support for cherry-picking, but thats
> probably not an insurmountable issue.
I'll install a bzr-ng sandbox on my server then. don't know how long
this will take me to setup and regulate access to it.
> Having read their ML for a while, they definitly put a lot of thought
> into keeping the interface simple and not overcomplicating things. They
> also put a lot of thought into design and keeping the design simple,
> refactoring where necessary.
sounds great
> They have however gotten hung up on details users dont care as much about,
> such as how data gets stored.
this sucks
> An
> active development community is definitly something I think is important
> criterion.
I think most of the scm's we talk about have an active community, no?
> If this is something we want to pursue I can help re-evaluate
> it (I may use it with sorcery if my issues with it are fixed).
you should of course. I don't intend to speak for any other team than
grimoire.
>
> Svk, another distributed scm, is pretty nice too. It is probably the
> closest thing to perforce I've seen. Over-generalizing, its perforce
> with the option to be distributed. Thats very neat of course, because it
> requires the least amount of change on our part. Downsides as mentioned
> are stability, slowness due to poor/over use of perl modules, and
> confusion because it uses svn as a backend versioned-fs (people often
> ask if they can just use svn). Supposedly they're working on cleaning
> up the issues with perl modules.
I saw the dependencies and dropped the cast. I'm not installing this, at
least not on my server. this combined with stability/slowness if they
still apply rules svk out imo
--
Pieter Lenaerts
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
"Linux so advanced it may well be magic"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Robin Cook, 03/17/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.