On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > And why can't all this be done with s/git/SVN/? All we really need apart > from what CVS already provides is atomic commit IDs, to make the > "maintainers would not tag themselves" part easily implementable. I don't > see why SVN revision IDs wouldn't be as good as git hashsums for that. > > In fact, in principle, it could even be done with CVS, but instead of > tagging a single revision ID, the build system would have to tag the > revision ID it checked out for each file. Having atomic commits just allows > dragging around just one revision ID instead of a set of IDs. With sufficient hackery it could be done with either svn or cvs, however many of our upstreams are moving or have moved to git, and there is a strong desire for our scm to follow suit. This really will wind up being decided by the person putting in the work to get it done, which at the moment is me. The added benefit of offline operation makes git even more appealing, and while I know you can hack svn into doing something like that, I'd rather go with something that is designed for it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
