From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 18 18:09:47 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 1011216A4CE; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:09:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from speicher.org (speicher.org [208.199.76.238]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511BA43D3F; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:09:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from geoff@speicher.org) Received: from speicher.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by speicher.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7II9Y7u014723; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:09:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from geoff@speicher.org) Received: (from geoff@localhost) by speicher.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i7II9Y6s014722; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:09:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from geoff) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:09:33 -0400 From: Geoff Speicher To: Richard Coleman Message-ID: <20040818180933.GA14249@sirius.speicher.org> References: <412380F2.3040707@criticalmagic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <412380F2.3040707@criticalmagic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Robert Watson 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: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:09:47 -0000 Sorry for keeping this thread alive, but... On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:16:50PM -0400, Richard Coleman wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > >Last I looked, my primary concerns with Subversion were: > > > >- Cost to import full FreeBSD history. > > > >- That it promised the multi-way branching and merging in a future > >release, but did not yet have it. > > > >Do you know how things look with respect to the second issue? > > > >Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > >robert@fledge.watson.org Principal Research Scientist, McAfee > >Research > > Reading the ChangeLog for the upcoming subversion-1.1 release, it > doesn't look like it. > > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES > > My understanding is that the merge functionality in subversion is still > about the same that is currently in CVS (although faster). Saying that the merge functionality is the same is a little misleading. On paper, it appears the same in that it too lacks a mechanism to help prevent repeated merges. In practice, it's much easier because of the way revision numbers work---across the tree. This allows you to use one simple merge command on one revision number to get an whole set of changes across an entire tree. We made the switch from CVS to Subversion at work almost a year ago and never looked back. Or Robert, do you mean something else by multi-way branching and merging? > But there's no denying that subversion is getting better by the day. > For a new project, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest subversion. But for a > large, existing project like *BSD there doesn't seem to be a compelling > reason to switch (yet). But that will change eventually. For a large existing project like FreeBSD where time is a precious resource, the reasons seem even more compelling. Subversion provides an automated solution to much of the manual dog work of CVS... can anyone say "no more repo-copies"? Geoff