Re: so, 3.x VCS

On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 09:46 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 08:24 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > So far I've heard of 3 devs trying the bzr tree, main concern has been
> > 'high' memory use (80MB) during initial pull, and that 1.0 is not all
> > that wide spread in stable distribution releases.
> >
> > I'd like to get feedback (or an explicit 'its fine') from hno, alex and
> > duane specifically before I suggest that we have consensus and are ready
> > to set a date for making CVS readonly and doing a final conversion.
>
> IMHO, we should wait until bzr 1.x is widely spread and, hence, better
> tested and documented. With folks pushing for Squid 3.1 release soon and
> a few large branches not integrated yet, I would rather not spend time
> on learning a new VCS and struggling with relatively immature software.
>
> Thank you,

Like all products bzr moves and advances; I would not classify it as
relatively immature because of its recently reaching '1.0' - it got
labelled 1.0 to reflect its maturity rather than immaturity. I can
appreciate the time argument about learning a new VCS, but there will
always be large branches pending integration; there have been large
branches outstanding the entire time I've been involved with squid; so I
don't think that that reason is a good one to delay; in fact, the sooner
one converts to a VCS that does good merging, the easier integration of
branches becomes.

If there are specific things about the migration proposal, or
capabilities that are a problem - I will happily let this VCS discussion
rest until they are resolved.

-Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.