Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
> > 2. Many people (and some buildfarm members) operate against mirrors of the main
> > repo which are created with rsync or CVSup. I am not aware of any way to do the
> > equivalent with SVN - any info would be gratefully received. Of course, SVN is
> > better at disconnected operation than CVS, so it might be a non-issue for many.
> > Even so, it might be a pity to have to forego the facility.
>
> Well SVN basically works by having that mirror all the time. That kind of
> sucks for people with many checkouts since it takes more disk space but it
> provides the same benefits of having a local mirror of the CVS repository
> which is really just working around the problems with CVS.
>
> The general point about the build farms is a strong argument in favor of SVN
> over the new-fangled revision control systems. It would involve the least
> change in the operational model and the main build farm maintainer is familiar
> with it...
Nonsense. Getting a checkout is almost as easy in Monotone as it is in
CVS or subversion. You just get an initial copy of the database and
then get all your checkouts from there.
In SVN there's this strange notion of keeping the latest revision within
the checked out copy: if you have more than one working copy, you get
the same stuff multiple times. If you "grep" the whole source tree you
get a lot of extraneous files in the grep result, which you then have to
"grep -v" out, which is annoying.
In Monotone the database is separate from the working copy, and from one
database you can get as many working copies as you want. You don't need
to mirror the repository, because you _have_ the repository. (I guess
another way to put it is that mirroring the repository is part of
everyday operation).
We use SVN internally in Command Prompt, and I will change to anything
else any day :-)
One thing that Monotone doesn't do to which we are used to, is
$Id$-style keyword expansion. The only other problem I see currently is
the long time to get an initial pull.
> It's also the easiest to get ahold of. Easier I would say than CVS which you
> have to download some bug fixes from various unofficial sites to get a good
> working version of.
Sure, anything is better than CVS :-)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
