On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:08:35PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
According to SF.net's news page, they are finally considering implementing Subversion repositories.
Anyone who is familiar with CVS, but has had an opportunity to use Subversion would never go back. Examples: (a)Try in CVS and SVN, renaming a directory with 100 files in it. No contest. (b) An SVN branch is not a tagging, but an actual branch of a directory tree, with the branch diff'd from the trunk. (c) Commits are 'atomic,' meaning that a commit is not applied if it fails during transfer, but only if it is handled correctly. Very sweet.
Hopefully it will also be faster. I've learned to deal with the other CVS iniquities but there's no way to really get around the performance problems.
It would be nice if Inkscape were one of the "specific selected projects".
Bob, can you follow up with investigating how we could get onto that list?
In fact, early on in the project before SF committed to adding Subversion, I had explored the feasibility of us doing our own VCS hosting. That investigation stopped only because we'd heard SF was implementing this. ;-)
Also, does anyone have reservations about making a wholesale switch over to Subversion with the main codebase? I have used Subversion previously and found the commands to be analogous enough to CVS that it didn't take long to learn. The main concern I would have is instability/bugs in their implementation. It sounds like they're going to be testing it pretty heavily though, and svn's been around long enough that the software itself should be stable compared with cvs.
Bryce