Re: Moving pkgsrc-wip away from SourceForge

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:59:39PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> - SVN is not atomic; the sequence "pull ; edit ; build ; push" offers
> >> no guarantee that the tree is left in a buildable state.
> >> While other DVCS will reject the push if the repo has changed, SVN
> >> does not - this is by design
> >
> > Not true.  If I try to commit a change and the file on the repo has
> > changed it won't let me.  It may be that other files in the repo have
> > changed but if I had to make sure that every file in my copy was up to
> > date before committing I could have a real problem on a large system
> > with lots of developers working on different parts of the tree.
> 
> Two data points:
> 
> - I prefer to know about interface changes that my break my build,
> before I do the push
> - it turned out that I wasn't alone, the incident of broken builds
> dropped measurably after a switch away from SVN - it was no longer
> possible to blame someone else
> 
> I guess we agree to disagree on what 'atomic' means and how important it is.

SVN has atomic changesets. That's a simple fact. Whether two changesets
conflict is a completely separate discussion. SVN uses the relaxed
definition of "they don't conflict if they don't overlap", Git enforces
a definition of "no more than one child on the same branch". Turns out
that for the purpose of pkgsrc(-wip) the former works fine and is often
preferable.

SVN has enough short comings without people inventing issues for it.

Joerg