Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on
ivoras at freebsd.org
Mon Jan 24 13:33:33 UTC 2011
On 24.1.2011 9:13, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Peter Jeremy<peterjeremy at acm.org> wrote:
>> On 2011-Jan-21 20:01:32 +0100, "Simon L. B. Nielsen"<simon at nitro.dk> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should just set the tinderbox up to sync directly of cvsup-master instead if that makes it more useful?
>> Can cvsup-master still lose atomicity of commits? I suspect it can,
>> in which case syncing directly off the SVN master would seem a better
I think des is working on "svnup" to work directly on the SVN tree.
> I've seen a lot of `self-healing' failures lately w.r.t. cvsup, so I
> wonder if it's time to look at another solution to this problem as
> these annoying stability issues don't appear to be going away. What
> about git?
As long as we're choosing bikeshed colour, I would like to drop
"mercurial" here :)
Mainly because of this:
> - Higher learning curve.
I found Mercurial to have an easier learning curve and to be something
like a "DSCM for the users of CVS/SVN".
> - Some slightly annoying nits with stashing local changes when working
> on separate branches (need to talk to git maintainers).
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I've also
noticed git tends to do things the long way around which should be
simple. Git's also much "lower level".
They both support pretty much the same feature set; here's a cute but
Hg is/was AFAIK used by Sun.
Anyway, personally, svn is good enough :)
More information about the freebsd-hackers