Re: Re: CVS Access Method

Le 3 févr. 07 à 23:36, Johannes Schlüter a écrit :

On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 11:02 +0100, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Branching and tagging is better in svn. One could mention atomic commits as well :)

A copy is neither a branch nor a tag :-) Just a few of the tagging/branching issues I see: - To diff your current working copy with a given tag you can do

     cvs diff -r TAGNAME file.ext

with svn you need the full URL.

     svn diff http://svn.php.net/pear/package/file.ext file.ext

- You need to have additional work to prevent commiting on a banch. With CVS you can only commit to HEAD and branches, not to a RELEASE_1_0 tag. Not to forget the other issues svn has - while CVS has issues I don't think php.net should change to svn just because everybody else does (while I, for myself, don't care too much about what PEAR does) :-)

I also don't find there is enough added value in SVN to switch from CVS. In many cases, SVN is worse than CVS. It won't fit what we need in PEAR IMO. If we were to change, other solutions should also be considered and more modern solutions like a distributed version control system should be tested. I have tested Mercurial and it's great. I think BZR is nice too. I heard that DARCS is excellent. SVN, just like CVS, are things from the past. Did you ever try a distributed version control system before ? -- Bertrand Mansion Mamasam Work : http://www.mamasam.com Blog : http://golgote.freeflux.net