From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 09:38:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A0C16A4CE; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.farley.org (farley.org [67.64.95.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B48C43D49; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:38:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from thor.farley.org (0hfn1bredusukhpe@thor.farley.org [IPv6:2002:4340:5fcd:1::5]) by mail.farley.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09Hcrkq006059; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from thor.farley.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.farley.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09HcqWN001544; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from localhost (sean@localhost)i09HcqJY001541; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thor.farley.org: sean owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:52 -0600 (CST) From: Sean Farley X-X-Sender: sean@thor.farley.org To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <1073582974.37229.8.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> Message-ID: <20040109113432.R1511@thor.farley.org> References: <1073582974.37229.8.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:38:58 -0000 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