From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JOkwh-0004Lu-QT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:32:31 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JOkwf-0004Lf-Cd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:32:30 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JOkwf-0004Lc-85
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:32:29 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1JOkwe-0002em-TC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:32:29 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] What does code_copy_enabled do?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:32:21 +0000
References: <200802072042.33139.rob@landley.net>
	<200802081451.39008.rob@landley.net>
	<18352.28501.572044.730022@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <18352.28501.572044.730022@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200802120232.22591.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>

> > Any news on the possible cvs->svn migration?
>
> To be perfectly honest, IMO there is little point moving an existing
> project from CVS to SVN.

I disagree.  CVS has several fairly fundamental flaws (no global revision IDs, 
unable to move files, and more subtle problems with branches/tags).
SVN fixes these, and in most cases works as a direct drop-in replacement for 
CVS.

While I can see that distributed revision control systems do enable some 
interesting possibilities, there's certainly no clear winner.  All of them 
seem to have have fairly serious issues with either usability, portability, 
scalability, and/or require learning a whole new workflow.  I'm sure 
advocates of each system will claim that their system is the "best", but I 
remain unconvinced.

SVN may not have the bells and whistles of some of the more exotic systems. 
However it is is well tested proven technology, and IMO universally better 
than CVS.

Paul