cvs, hg, git, etc. Re: meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 12:15 +0200, Tim Moore wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Topic is mercurial vs git vs cvs.
> > 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/246381/ is interesting on the subject of git repository
> styles, distributed vs centralized, etc.

Here is a super short summary of git vs hg:
http://blog.experimentalworks.net/archives/38-Git-vs.-Mercurial.html
it has one big flaw in that it missed named branches in hg:
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/hgbookch8.html
(The Mercurial book is pretty good btw, go read it cover to cover!)

Personally I am actually fine with staying with cvs. I like to tinker
with different cms like setting up the hg and trac clones. I try to use
them locally, but I cannot say I am expert enough to recommend one.

The real issues to discuss imho are:
- Does anybody have a good workflow in mind if we switch to any dcms?
  Although I can use it for simple stuff myself I don't really know how
  any of the more advantaged usages (vendor branch tracking for example)
  really work out.
- Is having the whole group learn a complete new set of tools and
  concepts really that beneficial over just staying with cvs?
- What does sourceware actually support?
- Who wants to maintain the system/set it up/keep track of issues/etc.
  Although it isn't that hard, I could setup the hg and trac mirror
  over the weekend, it is real work and needs someone to babysit it
  the first few weeks to help everybody get up to speed and make sure
  it doesn't fall over in production use.

Cheers,

Mark