On 17 Sep 2005, at 14:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:06:57PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: >> On 17 Sep 2005, at 12:36, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >>> The major problem with git from a freenet pov is that it is unix >>> only so far. There is >>> Mercurial (http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi) which >>> was started at >>> the same time as git with the same goals. There is a windows >>> version and it is being >>> used by the Xen project. From what I understand its storage model >>> is not quite as >>> freenet friendly as (unpacked) git. Either of these managers would >>> make distributed >>> development easier. >>> >> >> Subversion seems like the obvious choice to me. It was created by >> the same people that created CVS, and thus switching to it should >> cause minimal disruption. It has cross platform support, and there >> is a Subversion plugin for Eclipse. I have personally used >> Subversion on a number of projects and have no complaints about it. >> > > Is its architecture suitable? Each client having a full copy of the > repository would be highly preferable, as would a more or less P2P > compatible architecture (not needing to connect to a central server > for > everything).
Well, what is the goal here? If our goal is to find something more stable than Sourceforge's CVS, then Subversion running on dodo is probably the best option. If it is to do source control over Freenet then I think we are talking about a *big* project, and we shouldn't be spending time on it right now (it is really something for a third party to work on after we have stabilised 0.7). Ian.
