Re: X.Org Foundation - Release Call - 3rd May 2004

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 17:38, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 05:28, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > From one half of the 'complainers', this would be a step backwards.
> > > Subversion is really CVS dressed up with a nicer method of branching,
> > > proper copies, et al, and has its own reliability/scalability issues,
> > > not to mention the not-infrequent protocol/on-disk format changes.
> > 
> > In my experience, these issues have been fixed in the stable Subversion
> > 1.0.x releases, and it offers a lot over CVS, including a viable
> > migration path.
> 
> So we go do a migration, and train everyone in a new SCM, only to find
> it doesn't provide great merging, no real changesets, no support for
> disconnected operation and proper branching, no support for GnuPG-signed
> changesets (see point 2), and others?
> 
> Don't get me wrong - Subversion is a great SCM, and I use it in several
> places. I just think if we're going to do a major migration, we might as
> well do it to something worthwhile, being either of arch or BitKeeper.
> And arch wins there, by a mile.

I think Monotone, DARCS, Meta-CVS, ... could also be considered. I
merely wanted to point out that some of the issues you attributed to
Subversion may no longer apply to prevent it from getting ruled out
prematurely.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer      |     Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast    |   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer