Re: Subversion migration.

I think there is room to experiment. I think Arch just happens to be the
one alternative VCS  that we all know.  Ubuntu uses it a lot and is
funding bazaar (if I recall).

Regardless of monotone or arch, you need to convince people that they
want a decentralized VCS as opposed to a traditional centralized model.
Thats a much more important discussion since it changes the work model
on how we contribute to the project.


On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 11:56 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 23:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:06:15PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >     KDE moved to Subversion, news on Slashdot.
> > > 
> > > If we moved to Arch, I bet we would make even bigger news on slashdot ;)
> > 
> > FWIW, for those not there, the big argument made by the pro-arch camp
> > at the boston summit was that svn was merely incremental improvement
> > over cvs while arch had the potential to really change how we do
> > things. I can't really speak to that one way or the other, not really
> > having used either, but that is just the background.
> I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and suggest Monotone
> ( It has all the distributed revision
> control features of Arch, plus insanely cool branching and merging, plus
> integration with graphical merging tools (ie. meld) and branch
> visualisation tools.
> All in all it looks pretty cool and works today, plus we don't get those
> hideous branch names. I have spoken with a Monotone developer who is
> happy to rsync our CVS tree to test that it can handle our copious 11G.
> --d

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]