"Archie Cobbs" <archie@dellroad.org> writes:
The "how to verify and fix broken links?" thread brought up a question I've always wondered about....
Why does osc not-exactly-duplicate the functionality of svn, instead of just letting the user use svn directly?
In other words:
- Use svn for all checkout, diff, commit, merge, etc. operations - Use osc for everything else osc does
Two things come to my mind: 1. IMHO branch merge handling with svn is quite painfull as you need to know yourself what you branched of and what you've already merged in, at least last time I tried. Maybe a system that's designed with recieving and merging in patches, like git, might do a better job here. So I believe we are doing more and other things than svn. 2. There's pros and cons for hostig a distro, a collection of large random data (comptressed tar archives) plus relatively small patches in svn A strong point in the past against it was that we preferred relying on just the filesystem as a database instead of svn on mysql or such. We had plenty of experience from the autobuild system how to do that resonably well, and much faster than any full-featured revision control --- the features of which never matched what we needed. But still it might be an interesting point. For example, connectiva linux hosted their whole distro in a subversion tree, not sure what happened when they became mandriva. btw, as packages often come as sources with patches, I think if any revision control system, then git might be a better option. S. -- Susanne Oberhauser +49-911-74053-574 SUSE -- a Novell Business OPS Engineering Maxfeldstraße 5 Processes and Infrastructure Nürnberg SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org