Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base)

[Andrew Reilly]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:18:31AM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Dag-Erling Smrgrav:
> > svk is not an alternative to svn, it's an svn client.
> 
> As far as I understand svk, it is more than "just a svn client".  It uses
> some of the svn layers (file system, remote access for example) but add
> layers of its own for the distributed/decentralised concept.
> 
> If it is just as way to replicate a svn repo, work on it and get the csets
> back to the main one, then it could be useful but it would not be a full
> dVCS.

dVCS seem like a fine idea, where (as is done with Linux) it is
reasonable and preferable to nominate someone as the "keeper of the
repository", and count their repository the "reference", but isn't
the centralized repository of FreeBSD one of the great things that
makes it FreeBSD?  I can't see how a system of dVCS users can produce
the same end result for people like me who mostly want to track
-STABLE, and use CVSup as a network-efficient way to keep their
copy of *the* source tree up-to-date.  I admit that I've never
used a dVCS system, to give my comment the benefit of
experience.

I use CVS at work, too, and the central-server nature is, IMO,
more of an organizational blessing than a curse.  Network
connectivity is very nearly ubiquitous, these days, a situation
that can only improve.  I don't find CVS's central repository a
drama, even when I'm on the road.  (It's it's other problems
that I'd like to fix...)

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew