From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4232 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2013 12:37:55 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4214 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2013 12:37:55 -0000 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f54.google.com) (209.85.220.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:37:55 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-pa0-f54.google.com Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id kx10so3396739pab.13 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.191.231 with SMTP id hb7mr14915847pbc.82.1377520673100; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.70.90.100 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8738q4gj7a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201308222010.r7MKAljG013904@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87wqnda0tm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130823155534.GR5147@adacore.com> From: NightStrike Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A Proposal to Move to Git To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Paul Koning , Joel Brobecker , Tom Tromey , Mark Kettenis , GDB , Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, wrote: >> I've heard that the answer may be better in recent versions. If not, you can consider Subversion instead, since it certainly has the ability. >> > > Given that we have git mirror, I don't see the need to switch > to subversion from CVS. I don't use CVS for my binutils work > anyway. Subversion handles merging a lot better than CVS (svn merge --reintegrate works very well). It was written by people that worked on CVS with CVS in mind, and so it's trivial to switch over (both in terms of the repository as well as the users, ie the learning curve is virtually nonexistent.) Git users can easily use git-svn, which means you can satisfy mostly everyone, and still be using current, well maintained software. Obviously, the die has already been cast, but there is something nice about having a centralized server with decentralized clients. Kind of the best of both worlds. I'm guessing nobody likes that idea, though :)