Re: Re: CVS Access Method

Bertrand Mansion wrote: > > Le 4 févr. 07 à 10:39, Anant Narayanan a écrit : > >>> 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 ? >> >> I've used both git and darcs before; and needless to say that the >> convenience of distributed version control is unbeatable. So yes, I for >> one, would love it if we actually use one of these modern VCS: Either >> git, darcs or bzr. > > If you know Git and Darcs, you should really give Mercurial a try :) Hi, Justin has already made the case for why we must have a central server, so I won't repeat him. I would like to point out: http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html Because of the "Repository Permissions" section, we cannot consider darcs, sorry. Because of the "Ability to Work only on One Directory of the Repository" section, I don't think we can consider monotone, and we can consider mercurial only when partial checkouts are possible. The network traffic on checkout will be prohibitive (more on this later) For me, there are two other questions: 1) How easy is it to understand the documentation and to start using the thing? 2) How many tools are there for integrating RCS into IDEs or cross-OS stuff? The "Documentation" section really shows that we can only consider Subversion, Mercurial and CVS for having complete documentation. The same is true of CVS, Subversion and Mercurial when it comes to external tools, although CVS and Subversion are clear winners on Windows because of TortoiseCVS/SVN. All three have Trac plugins. Mercurial explicitly supports ACL with a plugin, and Subversion/CVS use the same model for handling ACL with pre-/post-commit scripts and so on. I would be up for trying out either Subversion or Mercurial, but I still feel strongly that we need a dedicated server, or at least a server that is not hosting pear.php.net to do this. Greg