From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 6 10:53:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4C816A420 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:53:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpc-users.org) Received: from omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com (omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com [144.140.92.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C8943D46 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:53:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpc-users.org) Received: from areilly.bpc-users.org ([141.168.4.160]) by omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20060306105310.SEVW16720.omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com@areilly.bpc-users.org> for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:53:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 85919 invoked by uid 501); 6 Mar 2006 10:33:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 21:33:09 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly To: Ollivier Robert Message-ID: <20060306103309.GA85782@gurney.reilly.home> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <200603051930.25957.peter@wemm.org> <863bhwvtrh.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060306101831.GA21025@tara.freenix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060306101831.GA21025@tara.freenix.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: tobez@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:53:13 -0000 On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:18:31AM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Dag-Erling Smrgrav: > > svk is not an alternative to svn, it's an svn client. > > As far as I understand svk, it is more than "just a svn client". It uses > some of the svn layers (file system, remote access for example) but add > layers of its own for the distributed/decentralised concept. > > If it is just as way to replicate a svn repo, work on it and get the csets > back to the main one, then it could be useful but it would not be a full > dVCS. dVCS seem like a fine idea, where (as is done with Linux) it is reasonable and preferable to nominate someone as the "keeper of the repository", and count their repository the "reference", but isn't the centralized repository of FreeBSD one of the great things that makes it FreeBSD? I can't see how a system of dVCS users can produce the same end result for people like me who mostly want to track -STABLE, and use CVSup as a network-efficient way to keep their copy of *the* source tree up-to-date. I admit that I've never used a dVCS system, to give my comment the benefit of experience. I use CVS at work, too, and the central-server nature is, IMO, more of an organizational blessing than a curse. Network connectivity is very nearly ubiquitous, these days, a situation that can only improve. I don't find CVS's central repository a drama, even when I'm on the road. (It's it's other problems that I'd like to fix...) Cheers, -- Andrew