Difference between revisions of "VersionControlSystem"
(→git) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== git == |
== git == |
||
Git will be released with etch and is a candidate that fixes all the above shortcommings |
Git will be released with etch and is a candidate that fixes all the above shortcommings |
||
| + | *Renames are guessed based on the contents of a file as opposed to svn & bzr which use unique-ids |
||
== svn == |
== svn == |
||
Revision as of 13:56, 23 October 2006
Options for the replacement of CVS
- CVS has a limited authentication model that means we need to fudge permissions every time a file is updated.
- Symlinks are not supported
- CVS is centralised which means that people need to be logged into the cvs pserver in order to use it
- A decentralised repository would reduce the need for branching when commiting medium sized changesets.
- A decentralised repository would mean that people don't have to be logged in to change the code, although they would not then benefit from the public_html facility.
BZR
Bazzar-ng will be released with etch and is a candidate that fixes all the above shortcommings
git
Git will be released with etch and is a candidate that fixes all the above shortcommings
- Renames are guessed based on the contents of a file as opposed to svn & bzr which use unique-ids
svn
SVN is the usual drop-in replacement for CVS.
- SVN fixes most of the CVS shortcommings
- SVN is very similar in operation to CVS
- SVN uses a centralised repository
