From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17970 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2008 16:06:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 17958 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2008 16:06:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.144) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:05:51 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so298322eyg.24 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.12.18 with SMTP id 18mr1811203ebl.126.1220025948527; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com ( [86.57.207.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm7313604gvf.7.2008.08.29.09.05.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:08:00 -0000 From: Sergei Gavrikov To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: eCos discuss list Message-ID: <20080829160552.GA23722@ubuntu.local> References: <20080827145131.GA12261@ubuntu.local> <48B7FFC9.7040605@eCosCentric.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48B7FFC9.7040605@eCosCentric.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Looking in a future: VCS for eCos 3.0 X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:21PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Sergei Gavrikov wrote: > > Hello > > > > It's possible it is an off-topic, but, looking in the nearest future of > > eCos project http://sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss/2008-07/msg00057.html > > I did think, It's possible, it is a good moment to change VCS (version > > control system) for eCos development? A couple of years it was/is CVS. > > The CVS has a well know limitations, and today, most of the developers > > select Distributed VCS. The famous are bk, git, hg. ... I do not want > > to fire the VCS flame here, but, if in the "eCos 3.0 planning" said > > A switch of VCS is probably something to tackle very soon after eCos 3.0 > rather than before. I agree that it's time to move forward from CVS. > > I've had a look at Bazaar and would need a bit of convincing personally, at > the least at this stage of its development. I found this an interesting > read: > http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2006/11/bazaar-vs-mercurial-unscientific.html > (including the comments). I'm still more inclined towards Mercurial, > although SVN is an obvious possibility just really due to its more > widespread use and slightly better client support (in addition both of > which are available on sourceware.org, but Bazaar isn't). But I'd really > really prefer to have something distributed. > > When the time comes, we can see what it looks like then. The decision isn't > just mine of course. Jonathan, thank you for your responce! I have become to think what I will be alone voter :-) I would vote for either mercurial or bazaar. Both are Distributed VCS, both are cross-platforms, both are written in Python (but mercurial has `diff' is written in C, so, `hg' did penalty `bzr' in 2006, bzr'2008 is faster). I would not vote for SVN, just thinking: If it is elder, therefore, it is more stable and clever. I found again what I read about bazaar's strength in 2007 from Mark Shuttleworth http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/123 (with the comments). It is interesting to read too. Thank you for your link. Sergei -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss