Jim White schrieb:
> Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
> Maybe in a year (but more likely longer), the DVCS tools will be worth 
> switching to.  Moreover, folks who really do want to adapt to DVCS from 
> Subversion will be integrating the synchronization tools on the 
> server-side in order to preserve their Subversion repository (for it's 
> dependability and integration with other services) while satisfying the 
> clamor for DVCS.

I think it is now the right time to decide on a tool, even if we switch 
to it much later. The reason is that there must be infrastructure on 
codehaus. If we are sure we want DCVS, then we should decide which of th 
systems, so the codehaus people can concentrate on the ones the projects 
do request. Most likely they will do only one of them. So the bestwould 
be to make a top3, which seems to be for me Mercurial, Bazaar, Git at 
the moment, meaning that I prefer Mercurial and Bazaar over Git. As of 
the format on the server side... that is not really our problem, that is 
the problem of the guys on the server, and they are surely will take an 
eye on it. I think for us the most important things are not memory and 
speed, but tool support and support for the workflow we target.

I placed Mercurial at 1, because it seems TortoiseBzr is no longer 
developed, but TortoiseHg still is. There are basic plugins for all 
IDEs, including Intellij, Eclipse and Netbeans. Mercurial and Bazaar 
work on all operating systems, because they are not written in a wild 
mix of C,bash, Perl and TCL/Tk. I dislike git mostly because of its huge 
ammount of command line arguments. In subversion you had what? checkout, 
commit, update, diff... maybe merge and copy. That's it. Do we really 
need more than that?

I am usually having different directories for groovy, where each 
directory represents a certain branch. That menas atm I have a 1.5.x 
directory and a 1.6.x directory. If I take it right, then for git you 
have the whole repository in the top level directory, but the classic 
checkout is made only on a certain branch... meaning I would either have 
to symlink the .git directories or have two of them.... But having two 
of them... The initial checkout takes really a long time. Now, that 
might bea problem for all three systems...I would have to find a way to 
checkout not the whole thing, but only a certain part... in some cases 
this is just what I need.. and I don't wnat to waste several 100MB just 
to get 20of them in the end.

Which leeds me to the workflow itself... How should that be? I know git 
supports almost any workflow, but what kind of workflow do bazaar and 
Mercurial support? I mean if none of them allows the workflow we want to 
have, then there is no reason to use them. But frankly I don't know 
about the workflow yet. I am only sure that having one main maintainer 
that has the only power of hte branch is most likely not going to work 
for us.... also I never understood how I can pull a different version 
from someone, if that someone doesn't host the version...

Even if we switch to a DCVS System, we most likely will still have a 
central repository in the end... or were are the other repositories 
comming from?

bye blackdrag

-- 
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org)
http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
http://www.g2one.com/