Re: so, 3.x VCS

On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 10:32 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

It is not about the version number, it is about being widely available
and used for a while. The first "mature" version of a VCS tool that has
not been a part of major distributions for at _least_ a few months does
not qualify, IMHO. We do not need to be on the cutting edge when it
comes to version control, at least not right now.

Alex.
Received on Wed Jan 16 2008 - 16:50:26 MST