3 ms·
To be honest it would make perfectly sense to host a VCS on another VCS, it's not about religion wars, pride and protecting your offspring. VCS have different f
by ithkuil 13y ago
To be honest it would make perfectly sense to host a VCS on another VCS, it's not about religion wars, pride and protecting your offspring. VCS have different features and some teams might be better off by using SVN, while the team developing SVN might be better off by using git to develop in a distributed manner.
I understand the need of self-hosting/dogfooding/whatever, so it wouldn't probably be a good idea, but it's not something to flatly dismiss just out of principle.
- gpvos 13y agoYeah, I think dogfooding is the only reason they should still use SVN. However, it's such an important reason that they should not switch to anything else.
- gecko 13y agoI also literally know no SCM, ever, that was not maintained on itself, except insofar as we might be able to have an epistemological discussion about early versions of CVS v. RCS. Bitkeeper, Mercurial, Git, Subversion, Perforce, tla, Monticello, Bazaar, darcs, Fossil, Monotone, and TFS are all maintained on their own systems. Subversion maintaining itself on Git would not exactly be a vote of confidence for me.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoIt would at least give you a lot of confidence that the decision-makers understand that there are differences between various SCMs and that there isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' solution.
- gpvos 13y agoWas SourceSafe maintained on itself?
- gecko 13y agoNo, but that wasn't an SCM. ;-) More seriously, I believe that SourceSafe was maintained on Microsoft's fork of Perforce, but I don't honestly know, nor do I have contacts at this point who'd be able to find out.
- gpvos 13y agoI would surmise that the original authors at One Tree did maintain it on itself, but it's a pity that it's nigh impossible to find any sources on this.
- dalke 13y agoThere are a couple of SCCS projects which are just barely outside of your epistemological discussion. ;) CSSC, which is the GNU project's implementation of SCCS. It uses git: http://www.gnu.org/software/cssc/ http://www.gnu.org/software/cssc/ . CSSC is meant as a stepping stone to migrate existing SCCS projects to some other version control system. Sun released SCCS in 2006. A couple of forks exist. One is the Heirloom project. If I read http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/devtools.html http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/devtools.html correctly, they maintain their version of SCCS using CVS. These are unlikely to affect your vote.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoThis was my first thought too - it would be a bit like saying you shouldn't right the compiler for one programming language in another, which would be patently absurd.
- TallGuyShort 13y agoThe other thing I would fear is if there's a bug that somehow prevents people from committing, if the SVN team is using SVN, the bug may get in the way of it's own fix. Pretty unlikely, but still - if my software was the platform for it's own bug fixes, I'd be looking for some more diversity in my stack.
- nathanb 13y agoYou're assuming that the svn running on the source control server is always the top of tree. I would assume that they use the latest stable release, not the latest checkin. And even if they did run into a problem like this, they could always downgrade the version of svn on the server, so long as it doesn't include a breaking repository format change.