From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 30 12:18:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7819716A4CE; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:18:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from itchy.rabson.org (mailgate.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B0243D5F; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:18:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from ns0.nlsystems.com (ns0.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.243]) by itchy.rabson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7UCIG5N096065; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:18:17 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: Brad Knowles Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:18:50 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200408160104.03708.chris@behanna.org> <200408301005.58602.dfr@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408301318.50737.dfr@nlsystems.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: Tim Kientzle cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Perforce? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:18:21 -0000 On Monday 30 August 2004 10:15, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 10:05 AM +0100 2004-08-30, Doug Rabson quoted David O'Brien: > >> For what the project uses Perforce for, SVN > >> would offer nothing. > > > > True. That doesn't mean that subversion isn't better than CVS > > though. > > That's not the point. The point is that subversion is not better > than Perforce, at least for the functions for which the FreeBSD > project uses Perforce. > > The debate is not between Perforce vs. CVS or subversion vs. CVS, > but whether subversion or Perforce is a better replacement for CVS > for certain specific functions. This is a debate that can only > reasonably occur between people who actually understand both > alternative tools to a sufficient degree. > > > I think that the point being made by David O'Brien was that there > were a lot of people standing up and being indignant about the way > subversion was being treated in this discussion but then saying that > they didn't know how it compared to Perforce. This is > counter-productive, to say the least. I don't think I was trying to suggest that we should use subversion to replace either cvs or perforce at this point. I just wanted to correct the slightly harsh description of how subversion compares to cvs in real-world usage. Right now, the only thing which perforce has over subversion feature-wise is built-in support for repeated merging. Since that is currently what we use perforce for, subversion is not a suitable replacement. It could replace what we currently do with cvs but there isn't much point if it can't also replace perforce.