Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Chris BeHanna <chris@behanna.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060304173804.GA11891@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 12:11:24PM -0500, Chris BeHanna wrote:
>
> And, as I recall, at the time, subversion's ability to manage
> branches in a lightweight fashion was just not there.
>
> How is it now? If it still cannot compare to Perforce, then it's
> likely a non-starter.
>
> My employer has a fairly large Perforce installation going, and
> every now and again, someone rolls out the open source replacement
> bikeshed, but it runs right into the "can it handle our branched
> development model?" brick wall and stops, dead.
>
I don't know how lightweight branches are, but GCC has jumped
from cvs to svn for all its development.
kargl[209] svn ls svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches | wc -l
143
The transition occurred in 3 steps: (a) someone step the initial
svn repo; (b) main developed continued in cvs while the svn repo
was made available for testing [ie., kinks worked out]. This
was about a 1 month period; (c) GCC abruptly switch from cvs to
svn on a specific day. A handy little wiki to get familiar with
svn is http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnHelp.
--
Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060304173804.GA11891>