What replaces csup?

[Jerry]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:44:46 +0200
Stas Verberkt articulated:

> We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two 
> different
> workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle,
> and the
> former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not 
> really
> have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more 
> about
> the production cycle you want to have.
> If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) 
> be in
> control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested 
> changesets
> by the community of developers. This community would be more free in 
> the
> manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong
> differentiation between "committers" and other people suggesting 
> updates. On
> the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of 
> committers
> and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the 
> schedule
> and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely
> simplified.) It is a matter of taste.
> 
> On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a 
> complete
> repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite 
> "heavy-weight".

I found the information at this URL
<http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitConversion> quite interesting, especially
the numbers under the "Speed Comparisons" heading at the end.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________