Below are some facts that we have recently learned about the difference between SVN and CVS. This will influence how we should adopt, and when we should adopt.
1) The Apache Software Foundation will be encouraging all projects to switch once SVN 1.0 is released (expected January/February of 2004). It will be mandatory around Q3 of 2004.
2) SSL will be provided (but from what I could understand, not yet) for encrypting all writes.
3) The major reason for the push is to make the Apache servers more secure (fewer shell accounts will be required).
4) Tool support is here, and improving. There is TortoiseSVN, a plugin for Eclipse and IDEA. These things will only improve with time.
Considering all the feedback here and on the PMC list, I have my list of concerns which can hopefully be resolved soon.
1) No granularity in the accounts. This is fine for Avalon developers, but we also include the Cocoon and JAMES development teams for the component development.
2) SSL is not set up *yet* within Apache infrastructure (please let me know if this is a misunderstanding).
Given the facts above and some of the concerns listed here and elsewhere, I am starting to favor an all at once changeover to minimize confusion. Once the account granularity issues and SSL infrastructure issues are resolved, I propose we jump in with both feet.
The command line is very similar to CVS, and the plugins to interact with it are not that different from the CVS variants. I hear nothing but good about SVN, and it does help simplify administration activities, and the barrier of entry seems to be lower than CVS. There are binary distributions available (i.e. already compiled), although they could be placed more prominently.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
