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

Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.



The reason I wanted to go the CVS way was so that we could avoid the
importing hell you generally go through when switching systems (both
on the server side and the client side).
On that side I found DCVS: http://www.elego-software-solutions.com/dcvs/

On the other hand, I've been staring at that git website and git
sounds a lot like SVN, so I'm all for it.

--Sthitha

On 8/14/06, Eugen Minciu <minciue@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dont know much about Git cogito, but if there's a distributed system
> that can directly work with CVS (as in sync to cvs each time rather
> than importing), we could set up anoncvs as distributed and leave
> dev-cvs as it is.

I don't think you can do that with git. And I don't think it's better then actually using git itself. If you haven't used git/cogito you could take a few minutes and check out the links in my last email.

I'll try to look for some articles/info about distributed development vs centralized development later. Git/cogito is used by the Linux kernel (and lately the Gnome project as well, I think). So it's proven to be reliable and fast (it was initially created by Linus himself as a replacement for the commerical BitKeeper).

Cheers.



On 8/14/06, Sthithaprajna Garapaty <iamsthitha@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
> I think that's a great idea for anoncvs.
> Instead of having one central server  that might get choked anyway,
> maybe we should try a distributed system so everyone can pitch in and
> give some bandwidth/cpu.
> I dont know much about Git cogito, but if there's a distributed system
> that can directly work with CVS (as in sync to cvs each time rather
> than importing), we could set up anoncvs as distributed and leave
> dev-cvs as it is.
>
> On the SVN debate, I dunno anything about performance, but I would
> love dev-cvs to go svn :) (And there are tools to get us there without
> losing history)
>
> --Sthitha
>