Given that most Xen related stuff (including virt-man) lives in Mercurial repositories, it seems a little weird (and a little cumbersome) that libvirt continues to use CVS. This issue briefly came up on the list once earlier, but didn't go anywhere. Is there any strong reason why libvirt can't move to Mercurial?

On 7/20/06, Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:59:43PM -0700, Diwaker Gupta wrote: >> Given that most Xen related stuff (including virt-man) lives in >> Mercurial repositories, it seems a little weird (and a little >> cumbersome) that libvirt continues to use CVS. This issue briefly came >> up on the list once earlier, but didn't go anywhere. Is there any >> strong reason why libvirt can't move to Mercurial? > > I know how to manage secure access to a CVS server, add users, write >access, provide anonymous access and snapshot to tarballs. I have no idea >how to do this with a mercurial server, that's #1 reason. I want the >source code tools to be hosted on a server I manage too. >Why do you think it is weird ? libvirt is not part of Xen source tree. >You should not have to recompile libvirt when you compile Xen (and vice >versa) so where is the problem for you ? I don't particular have a "problem" with CVS. My argument is simply this: for read-only anonymous access (which usually is the majority), Mercurial is infact easier to setup than CVS; for commit access, Mercurial fixes a whole bunch of *known* CVS problems (atomic commits, disconnected operation etc). Further, since libvirt is still fairly new, it would be easier to make the switch now rather than later. Finally, you're right that libvirt doesn't require compiling Xen -- I mentioned that simply to say that since these are "related" software projects, it is convinient for developers to just use one set of tools across the baord rather than a different thing for each project.