From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: aq Subject: Re: Xen repository Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:27:17 +0900 Message-ID: <9cde8bff0505230127689c431f@mail.gmail.com> References: Reply-To: aq Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: Jim Greer , Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Ronald G. Minnich" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 5/23/05, Ian Pratt wrote: >=20 > > On Sat, 21 May 2005, Ian Pratt wrote: > > > We're currently investigating alternatives to BK for the > > public repos > > > and should have an alternative up and running in a couple of weeks. > > > > Git? > > > > I am not sure I can recommend Arch any more after my > > experience with it as the linuxbios repo. >=20 > That's useful information, thanks. >=20 > cogito (the renamed git) looks pretty 'raw' at the moment. I did of > playing around with mercurial last night and was impressed with how much > functionality it has in just 2k lines of python. >=20 > One option is to just have a public CVS repo, and then everyone can use > whatever SCM tool they prefer as pretty much everything has an 'import > from CVS' feature. The only dowsnide to this is CVS's inability to > represent the current branch structure. >=20 how about using subversion instead of CVS? one drawback of using Mercurial is that it is not that stable. as far as i know, nobody is using it now (?). so it is pretty risky to use Mercurial as a long term solution for Xen. regards, aq