[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: When will be CVS replaced by modern version control system?

Well, Bazaar and Mercurial can both support semi-centralized repository systems. In the Enano CMS Project, we created a public mirror of all the repositories that are worked on in Nighthawk, which is the build and development server of all the work in Mercurial revisions of Enano CMS. While realistically Fedora cannot have such a system, the principle of designating certain branches of repositories for central authorization so that stuff like QA can manage it is possible with a single repository setting. Heck, I think even Ubuntu does that with Bazaar. Though as far as distributed VCSes go, I prefer Mercurial. Since Fedora is a Linux OS, I suppose it is fine to use GIT, but I try to avoid non-cross platform VCSes.

On Nov 8, 2007 6:26 AM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet samba org> wrote:

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 13:16 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:06:26AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:08:19 +0100
> > Adam Tkac < atkac redhat com> wrote:
> >
> > > But I know really better
> > > workflows which cannot be used with CVS.
> >
> > Can you outline what kind of better workflow you'd like to see?
> I wrote it in previous mail. I like distributed VCS workflow - local
> repository, local braches, local commits etc.

Is that useful with the centralised tasks that distribution building
requires, such as koji?

On the Samba team we are presented with a very similar issue -
distributed VCS systems are very attractive, but we also do a lot of our
QA with a central build farm, which realistically only works for the
centralised modal.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.

fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]