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

Re: Switching from CVS to something else

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Indeed.  Moreover, the only advantage of svn seems to be that to an
> end-user, it looks very similar as cvs.

It also supports symbolic links, proper file/directory renaming, etc.
All in all, svn is way better than cvs for almost everything.

Howere, it's true that a distributed VCS could favor bigger changes
because one can work on a dedicated branch and merge it later without too
much trouble. Depending on what kind of changes we're speaking, that might
not hold true for all VCS.

I do like git but as it doesn't store the information concerning file
rename it's possibly not perfectly suited to a big reorganization with file
moves and renames. In that case, bzr might be better, but bzr has poor
performances with big repositories (and webwml is a big one). Mercurial
then comes to my mind, but I never used it yet.

> If we are going to migrate away from cvs anyway (which seems to be
> necessary as the cvs.debian.org admins would like to get rid of it), I'd

I repeat that it's not necessary as alioth.debian.org offers CVS as well.

If the change to another VCS is too big, then we might want first to move
the CVS repository to Alioth and consider the change of VCS later on.

> say we should move to a vcs that actually adds some functionality.
> I was planning to make a wiki page to evaluate the different systems for
> our purposes, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Good idea, but you need some experience with each of the VCS to do this
correctly. So it can be quite time consuming.

My main fear is that we choose a VCS that most translators will have
trouble with. On the other hand, everybody can learn a new VCS. dpkg
switched to git recently and except one or two complaints, I haven't heard
much grumblings.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: