[svk-devel] Re: Mercurial (and NOT svk) chosen as Distributed SCM for OpenSolaris... Do we "Know" the reasons for rejection?

[John Peacock]

F. Javier Jarava wrote:
> My own line of thinking, having done some "study" of SCM tools prior to
> settling on SVK (I was a happy user of BitKeeper until they changed the
> terms), is that SVK is not "distributed enough".

I think you are probably right, but that it was a deliberate design 
choice on the part of CLKao (AFAICT).  SVK allows you to mirror any or 
all of a remote repository and access that portion of the history that 
you mirrored offline.  AIUI, tools like Mercurial allow you to mirror a 
repository at a point in time, then keep it synced with the main repo as 
well as multiple peer Mercurial instances.  However, only the primary 
repository has the entire history.

SVK is a fat mirror, as opposed to Mercurial or GIT which are thin 
mirrors.  It's just a different way to approach the problem.  Needless 
to say, I prefer SVK for now; if someone would write a driver to store 
the "local" mirror in a remote SVN repository, that could change the 
whole dynamic...

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748