Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 25.06.2005 01:34:43 Peter B. West wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi Peter
On 24.06.2005 04:19:33 Peter B. West wrote:
Subversion is no unknown quantity anymore, well maybe on NetBeans.
It
just takes some time until it gains a better foothold.
Nub of the problem. I ask myself the question, Why is the Apache
Foundation *forcing* the adoption of Subversion, when Subversion is not
even an Apache brand? Looking at the composition of the Board might
give some clues. That composition has just changed, of course.
It's not the ASF itself forcing the adoption of Subversion, it's mainly
the Infrastructure team. Subversion allows the addition of new
committers without the need for a shell account. AFAIK this is the main
reason. As the ASF grows the Infrastructure team has to somehow manage
to keep the ASF alive and as part of that it is planned to stop giving
away shell accounts. Subversion proved to be ideal because of (1) its
features and (2) the connections into the development team. Probably a
few other reasons as well.
I recall. I was subscribed to infrastructure@ during much of the time
when these decisions were being made. I also recall that prominent
names from the Board were active during that discussion.
Having worked
with Subversion for 18 months now I prefer it to CVS by far.
You can always get the sources using the official command-line client
that comes with Subversion:
http://subversion.tigris.org/
http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html
Which is what I had to do with BitKeeper, for which no client existed in
NetBeans, Eclipse or any other widely used IDE. My only gripe is facing
another learning curve for an SCM product whose basic design has already
been superseded by the distributed design of BitKeeper, Monotone, Darcs,
etc.
Remove BitKeeper from that list. It's not an option anymore. And then I
haven't even heard of Monotone and Darcs before.
I don't recall any discussion of the possible alternatives to CVS for
the ASF. Obviously, if you have never heard of Monotone and Darcs,
neither do you. So what criteria are in play when important decisions
like this are made within the ASF (and it is the ASF Board which is
responsible for decisions which impact the Foundation as a whole)?
Anyway, if you look at
[1], SVN makes a pretty good impression. The feedback I've seen so far
within the ASF was mostly positive to excited, even from some critics.
Sure, Subversion is probably not the best tool for Linux kernel
developers but it fits the ASF's needs.
[1] http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
Let's put this to rest, the decision has been made and I can't see
anyone within the ASF criticize that decision today.
Agreed, and it's hardly likely that anyone within the ASF is going to
criticise that decision today, is it?
Peter
--
Peter B. West http://cv.pbw.id.au/
Folio http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/
http://folio.bkbits.net/ - the atTridged version
