sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- 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
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:26:14 +0100
before anyone starts reading:
"I'll stop my rant if svn gets officially turned down, but it has all
features except for that it's not distributed"
see below
now, read on :)
Op do, 16-03-2006 te 15:17 +0100, schreef Arwed von Merkatz:
> Here's my incomplete list:
> - support for repeated merges between branches (devel->test, ...)
universal svn line for merging:
svn merge test@head devel@head test
> - support for cherrypicking changes on merge, this includes in-file
> cherry picking (for e.g. ChangeLog)
R=revision with "the cherry"
svn merge devel@R-1 devel@R test
> and in-tree cherry picking (integrating one spell from test to stable-rc)
svn merge stable-rc/spell@head test/spell@head stable-rc
> - support for partial submits (not submitting all changes one has in the
> local workspace)
svn submit path/to/file
> - support for file and directory renames
svn move source target
> - directory based access control
very easy with svn.
> - for distributed systems: support for push-based central repository,
> i.e. devs push their changes from their local repos to the central one
I'd like to get a conclusion on this distributed/centralized issue.
using distributed just to have a lot of backups around is stupid. you
can generate dumps on a regular basis, bz2 them and ftp them up 10
backup servers if you like, but asking that 1000 devs all have their
backup around is bad practice imo (I know...if we should get really
popular for that but it's about the principle of it)
if the central server crashes, everyone will still have their last
changes in their local repo's and will be able to merge them with the
last backup that's restored on another server.
the logs of those changes would have to be re-entered. if N changes were
submitted for a file between the crash and the last return point, those
N changes will all be in that one change
what other reasons did we have not to use centralized for the grimoire?
(not other teams)
> - scalability: our repository isn't exactly small, especially when it
> comes to directories; we have >76000 changes now, roughly 40 active
> user accounts accessing it
> - stability: we don't want major outages in the server, and the clients
> shouldn't crash too often either
--
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] SCM perforce replacement
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, David Kowis, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Matthew Clark, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Eric Sandall, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Maurizio Boriani, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, neuron, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Maurizio Boriani, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/16/2006
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement was: SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement was: SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Mathieu L., 03/19/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.