Re: [Dev] Source Code Revision Control Infrastructure

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 11:15  PM, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:

> Mitch also confirmed that the OSAF currently intended to use CVS.
>
>
> Source Code Revision Control
> ----------------------------
>
> I'll let others more qualified than myself discuss their relative
> merits, but there seem to be three contenders for this piece of
> infrastructure:
>
> * CVS - http://www.cvshome.org/
>
> * Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
>
> * arch - http://www.fifthvision.net/open/bin/view/Arch/WebHome
>
> Comparison chart (seemingly slanted towards arch):
>
> http://www.fifthvision.net/open/bin/view/Arch/ 
> SubVersionAndCvsComparison
>
> One thing I would recommend regardless of the source control solution  
> is
> several 'announce' mailing lists specifically for source code checkin
> announcements.
>
Agreed with this last, and let me also cast my vote for Subversion.  
Subversion addresses a number of well-known, long-standing deficiencies  
in CVS. In particular, Subversion versions filesystem metadata: renames  
and moves are handled well, as are execute bits on files. Subversion  
also handles binaries thanks to the DeltaV algorithm, whereas CVS (once  
you tell it that a file extension means the file is binary) stores the  
entire binary each and every time. Given that we're talking about  
repositories of persistent Python objects and the like, it would seem  
that good binary versioning support would be crucial.

> Michael Bernstein.

Best regards,
Paul

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process