Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Helge Hess]

On 12. Okt 2005, at 01:11 Uhr, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
> So it might be better to wait until the dust settles and
> pick a nice version control system when it is clear which
> ones are viable and fit the project best.

What I'm missing are reasons _against_ going to Subversion (aka  
upgrading to CVS 2.0 instead of sticking with 1.0), that is, what one  
would loose over CVS (I think the gains are known).

I fully agree with your statement above, but since this won't be  
sorted out in the next 12 months (probably not in the next 36 months)  
I find it rather weird to wait such a long time with a relatively  
minor upgrade. And even worse, it might even result in the same  
choice :-)


Well, there are two reasons which I heard in the discussion:
a) there is no Svn admin support on GNU servers
b) Svn is not a viable option for GNU projects due to licensing  
issues (is this
   really true?)
Personally I have no issues with either of them, but then I'm not a  
major GNUstep contributor either and it might indeed be an important  
problem for GNUstep.


I just want to restate that _technically_ there should be little  
questions, it certainly doesn't solve all issues with CVS but quite a  
number of them. Svn is a mature and proven software which already has  
replaced plenty of CVS installations.

The reason people are using Svn is definitely not "hype" as some  
other people suggested in the thread. Its just a straightforward  
replacement for CVS which has proven itself in various major  
deployments over some quite a long time now.

Greets,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org