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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Subversion?



On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:43 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I was just taking a look at this article and I thought, maybe this would 
> be a good time to show some leadership as a project, and take the 
> Subversion plunge:
> 
>    http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/08/19/subversiontips.html
> 
> Subversion is basically CVS as it should have been.  It's mature now.  
> The number of complaints I have noticed from users out there is roughly 
> zero.  Subversion _versions directories_.  Etc.  Etc.

Disagree.  We should use GNU arch.  Here's a comparison from someone you
know:

http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/SubVersionAndCvsComparison
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html

Arch supports repeated merging (incl. renames) and digitally signed
changesets (which may or may not be helpful in our case).  Mirroring and
replication are part of the core architecture.  Arch applies versions to
directories too ;)

> Our project development is not highly parallel at this point, so our 
> repository serves more as a place for maintainers of the individual 
> subprojects to post current code.

True.  For now.  Switching again in the future (if needed) will be more
painful as we attract more developers.

> So there isn't a great need for a 
> distributed VCS like Bitkeeper or Arch.

The more users of arch, the more mature it will become.  Someday,
perhaps, it will replace BK for some major open source projects near and
dear to our hearts.  Perhaps this is a pipe dream. ;)

For projects that don't need the parallel features of arch, nothing
requires that the parallelism be used.

-- Lon


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