sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Karsten Behrmann wrote:
<snip>
My point here is, any SCM can be made to do what we want it to do. The
focus will be what does it the easiest, fastest, lowest learning curve,
and is the most stable. So, I'm going to recommend against the simple
"yeah <insert scm here> does that" and instead ask that it's said how
it's done and what steps are involved.
I'd say we should check what steps the teams each need to do, and how easy
each SCM makes those changes.
The question is, do we want all teams to use the same SCM
(and possibly the same repository)? Doing so would allow you
to seamlessly switch over from doing stuff on one team to another.
Integrations between teams seems a silly idea to me though. On the other
hand, if each team got to pick its favorite SCM they might each end up with
something that was a bit closer to their specific needs.
I would personally rather use a SCM fit to cauldron's needs than to the
grimoire's, since our needs are probably rather different.
Basically, we want the SCM that is the least in our way. It can be in our
way by missing some features, by not being designed to do something we
need to do often, or for a multitude of other reasons.
I would prefer one SCM for everyone (though each team can have their
on repository) to avoid having an SCM for every team (worst case) on
our server, and for our mirrors to sync with, and for our developers
to learn/install, etc.
- -sandalle
- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEHyOfHXt9dKjv3WERAseiAKDIJqHNhJwzGbbTYE+cQdN4iFAkNgCeJzQ7
BFqXoa1NHGrATCjEm/2WFeE=
=oC+j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Robert Figura, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Maurizio Boriani, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, David Kowis, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Karsten Behrmann, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/16/2006
- 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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.