From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 4 17:38:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 3ED4316A420 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:38:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B4043D4C for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:38:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k24Hc4F6011983; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k24Hc49p011982; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Chris BeHanna Message-ID: <20060304173804.GA11891@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: 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: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:38:06 -0000 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