Jon Smirl wrote: > I was reading Brendan's blog post about Mozilla 2 > http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2006/10/mozilla_2.html You mean: "Oh, and isn't it time that we get off of CVS? The best way to do that without throwing 1.9 into an uproar is to develop Mozilla 2 using a new Version Control System (VCS) that can merge with CVS (since we will want to track changes to files not being revamped at first, or at all; and we'll probably find bugs whose fixes should flow back into 1.9). The problem with VCSes is that there are too many to choose from now. Nevertheless, looking for mostly green columns in that chart should help us make a quick decision. We don't need "the best" or the "newest", but we do need better merging, branching, and renaming support." There is work by Jon Smirl and Shawn Pearce on CVS to Git importer which can manage large and complicated (read: f*cked-up) Mozilla CVS repository. http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/InterfacesFrontendsAndTools#cvs2git By the way, I'd rather use SCM comparison table on neutral site, not on SCM site. I think that Mozilla project should come with it's own set of requirements and weights for best SCM _for Mozilla project_. 1. Converting existing CVS repository. This should be without data loss... well, beside data loss that stems from using CVS in first place. "Best" SCM would have: * Tool to convert CVS repository, which can then incrementally import changes. * It would be nice to have tool to exchange commits between SCM and CVS, be it like Tailor/git-svn, or via incremental import and exporting commits to CVS like git-cvsexportcommit. This would ease changing SCM, as both new SCM and CVS could be deployed in parallel, for a short time of course. * It would be nice to have CVS emulation like git-cvsserver, so users accustomed to CVS could still use it. 2. Good support for system which most important developers use, and good support for system which most contributors use. If MS Windows is included in those, then Git perhaps wouldn't be the best choice. 3. Good support for the workflow used in the project. Is it exchanging patches via email (hello, Git!), having ssh access to some central repository with central repository to push changes to or net/mesh of repositories exchanging information, posting patches on some bug tracking software integrated with SCM. Is it using many branches (topic branches), or is it using few branches and merging. But it is equally important to realize what would be the best workflow to use, not constraining itself to the workflow imposed by limitations of CVS. 4. Good support for _large_ project, with large history. Namely, that developer wouldn't need to download many megabytes and/or wouldn't need megabytes of working area. How that is solved, be it partial checkouts, lazy/shallow/sparse clone, subprojects, splitting into projects/repositories and having some superproject or build-time superproject, splitting repository into current and historical... that of course depends on SCM. 5. .... and probably few more -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html