Re: Subversion Migration: the importance of maturity.


> 	I dunno - if we decided that distributed development etc. weren't the
> most important things, and that maturity etc. were more important well
> then I'd see "stick with CVS" as the obvious choice.

Atomic commits, integrated ssh support, file renaming, constant-time
branches and tags, metadata is versioned, disconnected diffing.  The
subversion home page has more details.

But Sussman addresses this issue here:
> 	My opinion from the sidelines is that there's no huge rush here - yes,
> CVS can be a pain, but we've learnt to deal with that pain. When/if we
> do make a switch, I wouldn't like it to be some intermediate system. The
> fact the distributed development is a feature that so many hackers seem
> to want suggests to me that if we switch to Subversion now, we'd only be
> switching to something else in the not so distant future.

The point is exactly that we can eliminate the pain.  We can eliminate
the `Can someone go over to CVS and do some surgery for me on the
repository?'.  It should not be done, but it has been done, and it will
likely be requested again in the future.


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