[haiku-development] Re: Proposal: Moving away from Subversion
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:14:23 +0200
Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > Could someone explain how a distributed VCS like Mercurial can
> > possibly use monotonically increasing revision numbers?
[...]
> So my point is, we would need to use a big hex number with Mercurial
> as well when making releases and doing bug reports, so I don't think
> that is a valid reason to disqualify Git. Sorry, but unless we stick
> with Subversion we will need to move past revision numbers.
Not at all. Since we will continue to have a central repository, we
will continue to have stable communicable revision numbers. For
everything outside the central repository, we'd have to use hash values,
but that doesn't matter.
Revision numbers (instead of hashes) have a lot of advantages, not only
to identify a specific revision, but also to compare different
revisions, get a feeling of progress, and number of commits made since
the release one is currently using. When having a central repository,
there is just no good reason to miss out on them.
Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The choice for an alternative RCS really should depend on
> requirements
> we have, not on tastes.
Definitely. The reasons to get away from SVN are simple:
* merging branches is error-prone, and doesn't work well.
* you can work separately from the repository (ie. offline) without
losing your usual work flow
IMO SVN serves us well in other respects. Personally, I'm fine with
SVN, but I wouldn't mind switching to hg for the above mentioned
reasons.
For me, git is out of the question, not only because of the revision
numbers, but also because of its incredibly bad user interface, and
things like the need to rebuilt its internal database from time to
time.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
