Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC's version control requirements

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:13:07PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html

* Must support a single blessed version
    CVS can not operate in any other fashion, but this is an issue for
    a decentralized system; more on this below.

No comment.

* Atomic change sets
    The ability to refer to a complete checkin as a single unit.  CVS
    does not support this: if you check in several files
    simultaneously, CVS acts as though you made separate checkins to
    each file.

Whoops, there goes SVN, which can't.

* Cheap branches
    In CVS, creating a branch is a slow operation.

* Cheap tagging
    Similarly, in CVS creating a tag is a slow operation.

Oh great, definition confusion. These aren't the same thing, for
people watching at home: tla calls the former "tag" and the latter
"config".

* Language support and character set conversion
    A simple case is appropriate line endings for text files.

That's going to give somebody kittens.

* Integrate with bugzilla and gcc-patches
    CVS currently integrates with bugzilla--when an appropriate marker
    is put into the commit message, the commit message is added to the
    PR.  Integration with gcc-patches would also be nice--provide an
    automatic link from the log entry to the archived e-mail message
    describing the patch.

Eew.

> In a
> decentralized system, such as monotone or arch, everybody using the
> system has a complete copy of the repository.

Clearly been talking to monotone freaks for too long. Yes, that really
is how monotone and svn work, and it's what they think "distributed"
mean. Obviously it's wrong. Getting this idea out of people's heads is
difficult, almost as hard as the idea of "repository".

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature