From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1278 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 21:42:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1215 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 21:42:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 21:42:15 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18KQEg-0000NR-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:42:14 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18KQEJ-0008Ss-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:41:53 -0500 Received: from adsl-216-102-199-253.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([216.102.199.253] helo=bothner.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18KQEJ-0008SY-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:41:51 -0500 Received: from bothner.com (eureka.bothner.com [192.168.1.9]) by bothner.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB6Lh6N03529; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:43:06 -0800 Message-ID: <3DF116A7.3040308@bothner.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:43:00 -0000 From: Per Bothner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lord CC: gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc branches? References: <3DEBFF1F.8070603@bothner.com> <87y97752yp.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3DEC018B.4090905@bothner.com> <87vg2b51my.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <200212030203.SAA27437@emf.net> In-Reply-To: <200212030203.SAA27437@emf.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA, X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 From what I hear, arch is a much more visisionary and conceptually powerful framework. However, the "engineering" is lacking. So we have a choice between: * Sticking with CVS. * Switching to Subversion, once it is solid enough. This is basically an "improved CVS". * Switch to arch (after making it suitable). * Switch to bitkeeper (not an option for gcc). So the choice (in say a year or so) is between subversion or arch. I suspect it will be subversion, just because subversion has had more resourches put into making it a solid, eficient, maintainable and "production quality". It would be nice to make arch equally "production quality", but that takes a lot of work. I hope you can find volunteers to do that work. Perhaps "stealing" as much code from subversions may be worth considering. I.e. merge the ieads of arch into the framework of subversions? (I say this without know either code-base, so it probably doesn't make sense.) -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/