On Nov 10, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:16:02PM -0500, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
When I see mention of various cool features that developers have running in a private sandbox, I think it speaks to Inkscape's extreme need for a source repository that provides better support for branching and merging. I think Inkscape needs to migrate its source to subversion.
You're right, we should migrate to Subversion.
Well, I'm not quite sure that it speaks to an extreme need. We do have branches and different CVS modules for working out in, but many different developers have different work-styles and some prefer to play around a bit before going to far. It might be like a change from QUERTY to Dvorak, where it's a incremental improvement instead of an order of magnitude or two (as the only quantitative study I found on that showed perhaps a 4% increase in efficiency gain)
Jeff, you might want to skim the archives to see what came up on this issue before. Migrating to Subversion might be nice for a few things, but it's not seriously blocking a lot of people.
Also, there are some issues about Subversion's use that tend to put a damper on major enthusiasm for it. A lot of it can be summed up in the general feel that Subversion is designed to push it's developers' work-style on everyone. There are some base assumptions of theirs that go counter to many things I like to do at times. (oh, and in addition to having used several different CM solutions over the years, I also worked at a CM company)
Anyway, it could be a net gain, but there are several problems that need ironing out before we could get the most benefit from it. (Even a tool that works as well as TkCVS does for me is a large item)