Re: Subversion migration.

[James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>]

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> No matter on how technically cool arch is, it's a big change for 
> developers. Subversion is not, you can switch from Subversion to CVS 
> without having to learn anything new.

If anyone is interested in the differences between the command line
interfaces of CVS, Subversion and Bazaar here:
    http://www.advogato.org/person/jamesh/diary.html?start=196

I think people will find that all three systems are pretty similar for
the common operations developers use (i.e. don't discount Arch because
of bad experiences with tla).

I also wrote up some follow-on notes about some of the features of Arch
that are not available in CVS or Subversion, that may interest people:
    http://www.advogato.org/person/jamesh/diary.html?start=197


One other benefit of Arch/Bazaar that hasn't been brought up is code
signing.  When the CVS server was broken into last year, we needed to
check all the revisions since the last known good backup for tampering.

If each commit is signed, it makes it more difficult to tamper with the
repository since you'd need to break into both the developer's machine
(where their private key is stored) and the server where the main
archive is located.

James.