Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Andrew Ruder]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:52:41PM +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
> 1 - I don't think CVS is scaring people away, and I don't
>     think changing version control system is going to attract more
>     developers.

I am only talking about a way to facilitate hacking on GNUstep for the
developers we do have.  I have talked to many on the IRC channel that
would be interested (including myself) in having a place to hack on
gnustep code without importing gnustep into a private repository and
keeping in sync with the CVS repository. Yeargh, a nightmare...

> 2 - Last time I looked, subversion did not keep track of merges,
>     so trying to do multiple merges back and forth between 
>     branches is still a nightmare.

True, subversion uses a simple filesystem based merge approach.  Once
again, I am advocating !CVS.  Almost anything would be a considerable
step over CVS.

> 3 - Last time I looked, subversion was not great at operating
>     in a disconnected distributed way.

It isn't meant to be.  Svn is a centralized repository still.  You can
do a great deal more offline, but still no offline commits etc.. You can
use svk with subversion to get this functionality I am told.

Cheers,
Andy
-- 
Andrew Ruder
http://www.aeruder.net