RCS Discussion

[Pedro F. Giffuni]

Oliver Fromme wrote:
Samuel J. Greear <dragonflybsd at evilcode.net> wrote:
 > [Discussion about Version Control Systems]
 > The ability to keep a branch up to date/in sync without an excessive 
 > amount of pain. This seems obvious to me as a good feature to have, and 
 > having this ability in the master RCS potentially (hopefully) eliminates 
 > the need for the tree to be maintained in other RCS's in general. (For 
 > example, FreeBSD runs perforce alongside svn (previously cvs) for 
 > complicated or long-term branches).

The FreeBSD Perforce repository only exists because of
shortcomings in the way CVS works.  If FreeBSD had SVN
in 2001, the Perforce repository wouldn't exist at all.
It is planned that new projects will go into the SVN
repository, not Perforce.  The //projects and //user
trees have already been created for that purpose, see
http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/
It is the goal that SVN will be used for _everything_,
so you don't lose history and merge info when merging
a separate project branch to -current.
I'm not sure what will happen with ports, but I agree that FreeBSD went 
the right path when choosing SVN.

DragonFly has different requirements so FWIW, in an attempt to save 
DragonFly the repeated arguments, it would look like the second place 
was obtained by Mercurial:

http://wiki.freebsd.org/HgMigration
http://wiki.freebsd.org/LocalMercurial
cheers,

    Pedro.