incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial vs. Git
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:49:05 GMT
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
>> >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
>> >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
>> >
>> > Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to
>> the
>> > problems you experienced with Subversion.  Our infrastructure team,
>> working
>> > closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get
>> > Subversion working for the ASF.  We've often been their canary in the
>> coal
>> > mine.  :-)
>>
>> Right. I know that the Apache Subversion team would love to hear about
>> any problems.
>>
>> As Noel mentions, the ASF repository is quite huge. We're over 1.1
>> million revisions, containing a couple hundred projects and millions
>> and millions of lines of code. We've got international replication,
>> backups, security, awesome admins, and a development team to keep it
>> all running smoothly.
>>
>> I can understand people desiring the Git style of workflow, but that
>> is different from a problem inherent to Subversion itself. So... if
>> you guys *did* have issues with the tool, then we'd really like to
>> know!
>>
>> "I can fix it... my dad's got an awesome set of tools..."
>>
>
>
> Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the
> problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make
> a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent
> bi-directional merges between the different platforms where OOo is
> semi-independently implemented.  The nature of the project makes a DVCS much
> more suitable which is why we switched to Mercurial and not Subversion
> originally - Subversion was very popular for other projects at Sun.

(I've often seen version control systems take the blame when the
problem arises from code flow. So, I suspected this might be the
case.)

Subversion is a good match for canonical pattern use cases.

Apache uses a canonical pattern best suited to uni-directional flows.
This tends to force finely grained component based designs, and
clearer distinction between up and downstream code bases. So, again,
we probably need to think about how to maintain continuity and about
allowing a transitional period...

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message