From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 31 11:17:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from w250.z064001178.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (w250.z064001178.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [64.1.178.250]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 168F737B402 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 76419 invoked by uid 1000); 31 Jan 2002 19:17:54 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:17:32 -0800 From: Jos Backus To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Adding support for a global src tree serial number Message-ID: <20020131191754.GB75898@lizzy.bugworks.com> Reply-To: Jos Backus Mail-Followup-To: arch@FreeBSD.org References: <79300.1012474898@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.26i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 07:22:36PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Yes, I totally agree that we should switch to Perforce. Subversion? All current CVS features. CVS is good, as far as it goes, so we want to keep feature-compatibility: versioning, folding of non-conflicting changes, detection of conflicting changes, branching, merging, historical diffs, log messages, line-by-line history (cvs annotate), etc. Generally, Subversion's conceptual interface to a particular feature will be as similar to CVS's as possible, except where there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Commits are truly atomic. No part of a commit takes effect until the entire commit has succeeded. Revision numbers are per-commit, not per-file. http://subversion.tigris.org/ (Just kidding, of course.) -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ josb@cncdsl.com _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer; To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message