Moving Away From CVS: A Vote

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

On 09/05/2009 10:01 PM, Bill Barry wrote:
> I seem to recall some dirstate problem that we had to change how our
> server was working because we couldn't push to it. A new version came
> out about a week after we started evaluating bazaar and we decided to
> upgrade and found that we couldn't push to it. I think it was 1.13 or
> something like that. We gave up pretty quickly after that.

	Hmm. It's possible there was a problem with dirstate that I never ran 
into. At this point most repos are in the packs format (same as git 
uses) and it seems to be working totally fine.

> Every release (and there has been almost 1 a month for the past 2 years)
> seems to fix at least a dozen bugs. How exactly does there happen to be
> a new bug fixed every other day on average?

	I'd say that probably a lot of what's showing up there is just issues 
found in Release Candidates. Not sure, though. I haven't encountered a 
serious issue in bzr in a while.

> Wasn't it you that wrote the post about sucking less every release?

	Hahaha, it was. :-)

> No it doesn't have bound branches; I'll give you that too. I don't think
> it would be that difficult to write as an extension. [snip]

	Fair enough. I think bound branches is how we'd recommend users check 
out Bugzilla code, though, so that they could do "bzr up" and it would 
"just work" pretty nicely.

	As a result of having bound branches, bzr also has "lightweight 
checkouts", which are just a copy of the working tree without the entire 
history, and a pointer back to the main repo for operations that require 
the history. Of course, I've never used lightweight checkouts, and I 
don't know anybody who does. :-)

> My bound mode extension can be found here:
> https://bitbucket.org/Bill_Barry/boundmode/

	Cool. I will look into that if we go with Hg (though the way the voting 
is going bzr seems pretty likely).

> It will be much easier to maintain a fork than it currently is to
> maintain a single giant patch. I pity what Greg has to go through each
> time he attempts to upgrade Testopia. That is a lot of work (which
> wouldn't be nearly so difficult if it was easier to keep up with the
> changes).

	Yeah, I wouldn't want to maintain Testopia without bzr, myself, if I 
were a maintainer. Of course, I think the "Testopia For Bugzilla 3.4" 
may not involve a patch to Bugzilla at all. We'll see. :-)

 > His latest news was a bit unsettling as far as the future for
> Testopia goes.

	Yeah, agreed, but it's possible we'll see some community member come 
and pick it up.

	-Max
-- 
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.