On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:50:06PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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, Kevin'spoint is that svn would require less new hackery than git. I believe he's right about that as svn provides whoe-tree changesets without adding all of the vastly different semantics that git does. OTOH, nobody who hasshown up to do work has shown interest in a centrally managed scm, only dvcs and just as you point out, really it's who's interested in doing the work that matters. Although I will say that the reason that we didn't switch to a different scm years ago was not that no one wanted to do the work but that no one wanted to step on enough people's toes while doing the work. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpNqy0f0nlzm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
