NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I said, maybe i'll look at git in another year or so. > > But i'm certainly going to ignore all the "git is so great, we should > > move gcc to it" people until it works better, while i am much more > > inclined to believe the "hg is so great, we should move gc to it" > > people. > > Just out of curiosity, is there something wrong with the current > choice of svn? As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that gcc converted > from cvs to svn. What's the motivation to change again? (I'm not > trying to oppose anything.. I'm just curious, as I don't know much > about this kind of thing).
Distributed version systems like git or Mercurial have some advantages over Subversion. For example, it is easy for developers to produce patches which can be reliably committed or exchanged with other developers. With Subversion, we send around patch files generated by diff and applied with patch. This works, but is inconvenient, and there is no way to track them. With regard to git, I think it's worth noting that it was initially designed to solve the problems faced by one man, Linus Torvalds. The problems he faces are not the problems which gcc developers face. Our development process is not the Linux kernel development process. Of course, many people have worked on git, and I expect that git can do what we need. For any git proponents, I'm curious to hear what advantages it offers over Mercurial. From this thread, one advantage of Mercurial seems clear: it is easier to understand how to use it correctly. Ian
