not SVN? (was: An introduction of the new cheerleader...)

[Alexander L. Belikoff]

> But even if we could, I do not see an advantage. The rpm has its own
> versioning, which is quite adequate for what we do. I only check out
> CVS versions when developers drag their feet introducing new rpms.

I'll have to check it out again. Last time I used RPM for building stuff, the 
spec file was basically a ChangeLog (which was just good enough - one still 
wouldn't be able to incorporate full history in the RPM file).

> Personally, I think version control is overrated. Linus used patch
> and diff for years. When we have 500 developers per package, perhaps
> then we should consider Arch/SVN/Monotone. But this is just IMHO.
> I am also familiar with ESR's objections re: "Linus is genius,
> regular grunts cannot afford not to use CVS", but I'm not convinced.

Version control is *not* overrated. It is often misused and there are a lot of 
greedy consultants pushing all kinds of monstrous solutions using scare 
tactics, but there is really very little alternative to keeping an organized 
history of changes in order to handle bugs introduced into the system. Well, 
OTOH, I'm coming from the school where you'd rather have to justify not 
having something under version control instead of the other way.

In any case, I think we are getting off-topic...

-- 
Alexander L. Belikoff                      GPG f/pr: 0D58 A804 1AB1 4CD8 8DA9
Bloomberg L.P.                                       424B A86E CD0D 8424 2701
abel *at* vallinor4 *dot* com             (http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu for the key)