From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 27 05:56:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707C41065679 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:56:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D5E8FC1F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:56:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 19239 invoked by uid 399); 27 Jun 2008 05:29:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 27 Jun 2008 05:29:20 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <48647AAD.5040909@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:29:17 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Milo Hyson References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious about SCM choice 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: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:56:02 -0000 Milo Hyson wrote: > I apologize in advance if I have the wrong list for this, but it didn't > really look like anywhere else was more appropriate. > > I'm curious about the reasons for FreeBSD adopting Subversion over the > other candidate systems. I've read the pages discussing the pros and > cons, but haven't found anything discussing the ultimate deciding > factors. I ask not because I disagree with the decision, but because my > company is currently facing a similar situation. We currently use > Subversion but there is some interest in other tools. Understanding what > "tipped the scales" as it were could prove valuable in our own decision > making. I am NOT the expert on this, but I'll try to give you something to chew on (in no particular order) until someone smarter speaks up. :) 1. It's better to start collecting meta-data (change sets, merge info, etc.) sooner than later. 2. Of the systems available at this point, subversion is the easiest to export _from_. Which is to say, if we decide to use something else later on down the road it will be easier to migrate the repository from subversion to $NEWTHING. It's also possible to use frontends like git and Hg with subversion now, so people who really like those systems can have a comfortable environment to work in. 3. Subversion is close enough to cvs to give old farts like me less stress over the change. 4. Most of the other VCS' focus heavily on the idea of "distributed" operation, which doesn't really fit our development model. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection