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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Subversion?



On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 12:55 -0400, Lon Hohberger wrote:
> 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

Here also is a presentation giving an introduction to Arch from the
"bottom up", which gives you a much better idea I think of why it is the
best architecture, rather than just comparing checkboxes on some list.

http://web.verbum.org/tla/grokking-arch/img0.html

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

Right - switching revision control systems is always painful.  You want
to make the choice once.

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]