[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: external repositories (Re: RH Decisions)

On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 05:51, Phillip Compton wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 22:22, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Féliciano Matias (feliciano matias free fr) said: 
> > > > My guess is that the right answer is in between; that we have a common
> > > > set of policies, build tools, CVS server,
> > > 
> > > Have you considering using subversion ?
> > 
> > It's been considered. One advantage of CVS is that it lowers the entry
> > barrier for those wanting to view/checkout/etc.
> > 
> > Bill
> As RHL9, and TNV (presumably RHL10) ship with subversion, is the barrier
> that high? There is also the web interface, which has no real barrier
> for entry.

IIRC, older subversion clients aren't compatible to newer subversion
servers so you would have to provide newer subversion packages for RHL9.

I'd love to use subversion, but it still has some deficiencies over CVS:

- Missing "svn obliterate". If you really have to delete something
completely and permanently from the repository (as in "when a court
orders you to do so", I'll leave it to your imagination why that could
be), you can do it in CVS easily -- just remove the file from the
repository. With subversion, all is in a database so it would be very
tedious if not impossible to accomplish this.

- Missing "svn annotate".

I'd say that we should wait a bit, as we can easily cvs2svn the stuff
when we feel the time has come to use subversion.

     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp redhat com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]