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

Daniel Stone writes:
 > 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.
 > 
 > I was personally gunning for Arch. Full disconnected operation, proper
 > changesets and GnuPG signing of them, crazy branching and crazier
 > merging (in a good way). It's really the only SCM system that scales,
 > and it's fantastic for people working on completely unrelated things in
 > branches, or people working offline, or whatever.
 > 

CVS is a tool that is widely deployed. It is well known and people know
how to work with it. It is know to be stable (more or less). I don't
say it is perfect - and some features are definitely missing.

If we are going to replace it we make the burdeon on people who want
to get involved even higher. 
On the one hand you want to get rid of Imake with the argument that
it is not widely know yet you suggest to exchange the revision control
system with something that is not well known.

Furthermore any proposed revision control system must be compatible
across versions. This must be guaranteed before we can even start
considering it. This is essential in a distributed development 
environment.

Egbert.