Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:52 -0600 (CST) From: Sean Farley <sean-freebsd@farley.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? Message-ID: <20040109113432.R1511@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <1073582974.37229.8.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040107151556.6025A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <1073582974.37229.8.camel@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Doug Rabson wrote: > I've been re-evaluating the current subversion over the last couple of > weeks and its holding up pretty well so far. It still misses the > repeated merge thing that p4 does so well but in practice, merging > does seem to be a lot easier than with CVS due to the repository-wide > revision numbering system - that makes it easy to remember when your > last merge happened so that you don't merge a change twice. > > The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be: > > 1. A replacement for cvsup. Probably quite doable using svnadmin dump > and load. > 2. Support for $FreeBSD$ - user-specified keywords are not supported > and won't be until after svn-1.0 by the looks of things. > 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the > current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died > pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers are > planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list archives, > it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test material for > the migration scripts. I admit to having not tried it, but I wonder how well OpenCM (http://www.opencm.org/) would compare. I think it would have a smaller footprint than Subversion. Sean ----------------------- sean-freebsd@farley.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040109113432.R1511>