Dear Jerry,
in message 4293A43A.7070306@smiths-aerospace.com you wrote:
Attached is a web page snapshot of my internal notes. The problems that
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your help (and the style you woirk and document your work, too!).
I'll continue playing with monotone and report what I find. Merging changes was a real pain for more than trivial changes. It likely was my
...
Darc appears to be much easier to use than ARCH. I know I had to do a lot of recipe building with ARCH because I struggled to remember what had to be done in what order. All the darc review/feedback that I've been reading talks about how much easier it is to use (granted, all the pages were "how I switched from ARCH to darc" so they are biased :-)
After some more reading I feel it boils down to a decision between monotone and darc.
I would like to ask: who of you is actively using one or the other, what are your experiences, which problems did you run into, etc. If you have any "please use ... because ..." or "don't use ... because ..." statements I'd appreciate these, too.
But I'd rather not flood this list with such a discussion - please send any such input to my direct address (wd@denx.de). I'll be happy to post a summary.
What I really like about ARCH and darc is the changeset cherry picking. It isn't clear that monotone would give me that capability as easily.
If it's not available/good enough not today, it will come soon, I think. The good thing of dropping BK for kernel development is that a lot of new power now goes into the development of free software alternatives.
I don't have enough experience to say for sure, however. What I want to do is:
- Stay in sync with the u-boot master repository
Additionally, I want to get rid of a central repository because it does not match the way work gets done these days.
- Source control our local customizations
- Easily submit changesets to the master repository
- If a changeset is rejected, keep the changes locally without having to forever screw around with editing it out of new changesets that I want to submit (i.e. easily and cleanly support delta changesets).
- If a changeset is accepted, be able to merge the official version into my local tree without a lot of merging pain. With darc and
...
Agreed completely.
Disclaimer: If I were smarter, all of the above is probably do-able with any source control system (even PVCS Dimensions ;-).
Ummm.. I guess you meant "If I were smarter and had more time, ..." - yes, I know exactly what you mean ;-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk