On Aug 31, 2005, at 12:45 AM, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Now, a consensus on a versioning switch can only be reached if mental's argument against svn can be mollified. Mental, I thought you would look at the new systems that build upon svn and tell us if one of these solves the remaining problem for you.
Lastly, I would ask for opinions on if there should be a comprehensive overview of svn-based versioning systems being presented to the list to help reach a consensus, or is that consensus already existent, only pending mental's issue?
I've used a few different systems over the years, but haven't actually put SVN through it's paces yet.
Most of it's features sound good, but enough has come up in regards to workflow-lockin to the way the SVN developers think one should work that I'm not so sure of it now.
Tools are another concern. Personally I use TkCVS extensively, and use it's UI to speed my workflow for many things (In many situations that and TortoiseCVS together can beat the pants off of WinCVS). I look periodically for a SVN client with similar capability and ease, but haven't seen one yet. And the TkCVS pages make it clear they aren't doing SVN themselves.
If anyone knows of anything current that could compare, that would be helpful.
But again, Mental's issues might just be the tip of the iceberg. I was waiting myself to see what all was presented before delving into my own research. Oh, and my main experience has been with custom RCS- wrapping systems, StarTeam, CVS (in many deployments) and Perforce.