develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Perforce vs CVS

Thread Previous | Thread Next
John Tobey
July 25, 2000 21:18
Re: Perforce vs CVS
Message ID:
Dan Sugalski <> wrote:
> At 01:03 PM 7/26/00 +1000, wrote:
> >I'd hate to see us create a barrier to entry which discourages people
> >from reading or contributing to the perl source.
> Here's a bigger issue with any source control system we choose. We *must* 
> make sure that everyone, on any reasonable platform, has access to at least 
> timely snapshots of the code, and I'd really prefer a full-blown client.
> Don't forget, p5 runs on VMS, MacOS, Windows, AS/400, RISCOS, OS/2, and 
> OS/390 (at least) in addition to the various flavors of Unix. Forcing 
> someone to port a client just to participate, or to require a Unix box, is 
> a nasty thing, and one we should consider long and hard before we do it. 
> (Both perforce and CVS clients run on most of the named OSes AFAIK, and if 
> we have a pure perl client that's OK too)

OK, this is starting to bug me.  I would contribute more to Perl 5 if
it were in CVS instead of Perforce.  Having to use rsync to bring
bleadperl up-to-date is a royal PITA.  CVS *has* 3-way merge, and the
Emacs client gives it a reasonable front end.

> Having said that, we ought to choose the source control tool that meets our 
> needs best and gets in the way least. The P in perl stands for Practical, 
> not Political, after all...

Who is "we" in "our needs"?  The developers with write access, or
contributors who just want to change a half-dozen files in various
directories and send in the output of cvs diff -u?


John Tobey, late nite hacker <>
\\\                                                               ///
]]]             With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow.           [[[
///                                                               \\\

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About