Re: [Axiom-developer] Preferred SCM

[David MENTRE]

Hello,

2006/2/7, root <address@hidden>:
> I keep the savannah and sourceforge CVS sites up to date and in sync
> with the arch site so there is no requirement to use arch. i suppose
> if we grow to the size of the linux development environment we'd have
> to standardize on something but I suspect the archival tool would be
> the least of our concerns.

As Tim, I don't think that the choice of a Source Code Management
system is that important, as long as the SCM of choice is available as
free software and is not to complicated to install (I know, subjective
criterion ;-).

Regarding Arch, Tom Lord, its official maintainer, has officially
stopped to develop it. Arch forks, Bazaar and Bazaar-ng, do not seem
to be ready for real use. As I'm using Arch for my own project for
more that two years now, I'm also considering switching to a new SCM
(Arch is quite irritating sometimes).

I think I have the same requirements as Axiom (efficiency, Windows
availability, decentralized if possible) and my short list is
Mercurial, Subversion and SVK. Interestingly, SVK seems to be a good
compromise between Subversion and Arch: it works in a decentralized
manner as Arch (with apparently the same merge algorithms) but it is
compatible with de-facto standard Subversion and can works daily with
svn repositories. For interested people, see relevant thread:
  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.politics.organizations.demexp.devel/785

It might become of topic for this list but I would be interested about
real SCM experiments. I already know about Subversion (I'm using it at
work, under Windows) and Arch.

Best wishes,
d.

PS for Tim: Tim, regarding synchronization of your CVS repositories
with you Arch tree, you should take a look at Tailor which is designed
exactly for that:
  http://www.darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor
"""
Tailor is a tool to migrate changesets between ArX, Bazaar, Bazaar-NG,
CVS, Codeville, Darcs, Git, Mercurial, Monotone, Subversion and Tla
repositories.
"""