From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6778 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2008 22:26:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6765 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2008 22:26:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:26:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BE525DABF; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Sd8YWapXbLz3; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F0825DABC; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5105DE7ACD; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:26:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB Focus Group at the 2008 GCC Summit Message-ID: <20080623222626.GC3752@adacore.com> References: <20080619190942.GA3744@adacore.com> <200806232208.m5NM8HTZ011692@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806232208.m5NM8HTZ011692@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > Objection! I have played with SVN for work and I really dilike the > fact that a checked out repository is very grep unfriendly. Could you tell us what part is causing trouble with grep? Is it the fact that there is a copy of the checked out version inside the sandbox metadata? Roughly around the same time that the GCC project transitioned to SVN, we at AdaCore also slowly started transitioning our own repositories away from CVS to SVN as well. There might be some issues that SVN introduce (huge amount of metadata, for instance), but overall we have found that the benefits it brings over CVS are well worth the transition. The alternatives are: (1) staying with CVS or (2) transitioning to another VC system. I do think that we have much to gain by transitioning to a more modern VC. SVN seemed the natural choice since the GCC project adopted it, and the transition from CVS to SVN is very easy from the user's perspective. I don't mind looking at other alternatives, but I think it would only make sense if we looked at distributed VC systems such as git or hg. -- Joel