Public Access to Perforce?
dfr at nlsystems.com
Mon Aug 30 05:18:21 PDT 2004
On Monday 30 August 2004 10:15, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 10:05 AM +0100 2004-08-30, Doug Rabson quoted David O'Brien:
> >> For what the project uses Perforce for, SVN
> >> would offer nothing.
> > True. That doesn't mean that subversion isn't better than CVS
> > though.
> That's not the point. The point is that subversion is not better
> than Perforce, at least for the functions for which the FreeBSD
> project uses Perforce.
> The debate is not between Perforce vs. CVS or subversion vs. CVS,
> but whether subversion or Perforce is a better replacement for CVS
> for certain specific functions. This is a debate that can only
> reasonably occur between people who actually understand both
> alternative tools to a sufficient degree.
> I think that the point being made by David O'Brien was that there
> were a lot of people standing up and being indignant about the way
> subversion was being treated in this discussion but then saying that
> they didn't know how it compared to Perforce. This is
> counter-productive, to say the least.
I don't think I was trying to suggest that we should use subversion to
replace either cvs or perforce at this point. I just wanted to correct
the slightly harsh description of how subversion compares to cvs in
Right now, the only thing which perforce has over subversion
feature-wise is built-in support for repeated merging. Since that is
currently what we use perforce for, subversion is not a suitable
replacement. It could replace what we currently do with cvs but there
isn't much point if it can't also replace perforce.
More information about the freebsd-current