From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23820 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2002 23:02:05 -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 23812 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 23:02:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 23:02:04 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18LAR2-00025S-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:02:04 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LALx-0003G3-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:56:51 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.80]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LALx-0003Fw-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:56:49 -0500 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254] helo=localhost) by anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18LALw-0007aq-0U for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:56:48 +0000 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7199847DF3; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:56:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Bruce Stephens To: gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation References: <20021208113711.8E3ECF2E46@nile.gnat.com> <200212082206.OAA19308@emf.net> <200212082244.gB8MitS00597@greed.delorie.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200212082244.gB8MitS00597@greed.delorie.com> (DJ Delorie's message of "Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:44:55 -0500") Message-ID: <87lm30m85r.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL,RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 DJ Delorie writes: [...] >> 10) The utility of the existing revision control set up to >> people who lack write access is distinctly less than >> the utility to people with write access. > > This is a good thing. We don't want them to be able to do all the > things write-access people can do. That's the whole point. Not on the central repository, no. But it might be that people (people without write access to the main repository) could usefully keep branches on their own repository (perhaps merging the patches in at some stage). With CVS, that's not possible, but with a distributed CM system it would be. >> 11) Some efforts, such as overhauling the build process, will >> probably benefit from a switch to rev ctl. systems that >> support tree rearrangements. > > Like CVS? It supports trees. It doesn't handle renaming files or directories. There are ways to do both, but you lose something, whatever you choose to do.