revision control [was Re: Driving towards Bugzilla 3]

[Christopher Hicks]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Luis Villa wrote:
> I haven't terribly thoroughly explored the problem, but as I indicated
> in a previous thread, I think unless svn offers substantially better
> merge tools than cvs does (and I've not seen evidence to that effect,
> but like I said haven't looked hard) we should look very hard at arch.

I avoided doing anything dicey with cvs so I rarely if ever let it get 
into a place where a merge was required.  svn seems to do this a bit 
better than I remember cvs doing it but given my lack of experience with 
cvs I can't really say how much its actually changed.

> Arch seems to offer tools that explicitly address the merge problems the 
> many 'forked' bugzillas (including mozilla's) have- it seems like those 
> issues should be a major consideration in choosing the next revision 
> control for us.

I have no objections to arch.  svn is a shorter leap, but I just mentioned 
it because I thought it would solve the problem Dave mentioned, but it 
turned out that the problem would have affected svn or arch almost as much 
as cvs so it wasn't a solution for that problem.

> p.s. for what it is worth, I haven't seen another project that actually 
> needs arch; in general the be-a-better-cvs approach would work well for 
> most projects I'm involved in. But 'just a better cvs' probably 
> shouldn't be enough for bugzilla.

I've heard good things about arch, but I've never had a reason to play 
with it myself.  BitKeeper is rather spiff too.

-- 
</chris>

"Fans of Mozilla's free, open-source Firefox browser make the
ardent Apple faithful look like a bunch of slackers."
- Rebecca Lieb at clickz.com