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

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.

-- 
Daniel Stone                                            
<daniel-CC+yJ3UmIYoUP7JLjWt5Lw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
freedesktop.org: powering your desktop                http://www.freedesktop.org

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
release-wranglers mailing list
release-wranglers-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers