Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
Interesting topic.
I'd be interested in learning what would be made infinitely better.
Distributed revision control is definitely superior to the conventional
centralized revision control plus patching rigmarole.
I don't think there is anything offering infinite improvement at this
stage though.
But SVN shortcomings aren't on my top 10 hadoop issues yet.
I'd be interested in hearing from folks who think they this would be
very valuable.
But I agree with doug. Too much leverage in using Apache's
infrastructure to make this appealing.
...
Yes, indeed.
Especially since git is nowhere near suitable for folks who aren't
Linux-based, command-line loving hackers. A key thing to remember is
that many folks use the SCM integration in their IDE, an area where even
Subversion is still working to catch up with CVS.
BitKeeper (the commercial distributed revision control tool git was
written to replace) is at least cross-platform, but is not free. Nor
are it's benefits over the current system worth the total cost of
operation for ordinary projects like Hadoop.
Linus extols git's virtues (and Subversion's worthlessness) in his
inimitable style here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
Since we're discussing SCM, I'll mention darcs. Even though it may not
be as fast as git, it is OSS and implemented in Haskell, making it an
promising starting point for more creative applications. Links to that
and other interesting tools here:
http://www.ifcx.org/wiki/RevisionControl.html
Jim
