In case to use SVN is ASF policy for new TLPs I don't understand why we
are voting on this. The ballot looks like
O Yes, use SVN as it is the best revision control system available
O Yes, use SVN as it is ASF policy to use it
So where is the point to have a vote her?
Oliver
Sean Schofield wrote:
Oliver,
One thing you should know is that MyFaces is technically supposed to
be in SVN as a new Apache project. Apparently (according to people on
the @infra list) this is a requirement for all new top level projects.
(I wonder why the incubator is in CVS then?)
In addition to the fact that we're supposed to be on SVN there are
maintenance advantages for us. Basically it took four weeks to get
Stan Silvert his karma where Manfred could have done it in a single
day. When we finally got @infra to help us we received the lecture
about being on SVN.
sean
On 4/15/05, Thomas Spiegl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 switch from CVS to Subversion
On 4/15/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on the switch
-bd-
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 07:18AM, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<<Original Attached>>
For all WIndows users: TortoiseSVN is a good choice. Give it a try.
IntelliJ users: I'm currently evaluating build #3281 with integrated SVN
support. No problem so far.
Oliver, yes, tool support is better (manifold) for CVS. Not really astonishing
keeping the age of CVS in mind.
Anyway, the ASF has decided to switch from CVS to SVN and we should not be the
blocker, IMHO.
Is there a certain tool you have in mind, that has bad or no SVN support by now?
-Manfred
On 4/15/05, Oliver Rossmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While subversion has it's merits
-1 from me to switch to subversion at this point in time.
We had this discussion a few times in the past and IMHO the most
important argument against svn has not changed until today: tool support
for subversion is far from what's available for CVS so this switch would
be a step back in developer productivity from my POV. And I hate these
stuipid long revision ids subversion uses as I'm not able to memorize
them for more than a minute's time ;-)
As for source history: as far as I followed the discussions there will
be some moving/renaming of top-level directories in the myfaces module
so this can be done on filesystem level in the repository without
loosing history (same way as we did when migrating the sources from
sourceforge to ASF). This might be not that comfortable as it would be
using svn, but it can be done.
Oliver
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Final release 1.0.9beta is only a question of hours now. After
publication will be the best time to finally move our repository out
of the incubator.
We have already discussed and voted about the SVN issue, but there are
some new and changed circumstances and I would like to find out if
there are still committers who have serious objection against SVN.
Cons:
- IntelliJ users still do not have integrated SVN support.
Pros:
- SVN is the new repository technology for ASF. At the long term all
Apache projects should have moved to SVN. So it's unwritten common
sense that new top level projects should start with SVN from the
beginning.
- As you know, SVN is able to keep history for renamed and moved files
and dirs. Just now we are discussing some serious structural changes
(subprojects, sandbox, etc.) If we do that now in CVS we would loose
valuable history for many files.
- TortoiseSVN is a powerful alternative for all IntelliJ users in the meantime.
So here is my definite
+1 for switching from CVS to Subversion
-Manfred
--
Oliver Rossmueller
Software Engineer and IT-Consultant
Hamburg, Germany
http://www.rossmueller.com
--
Oliver Rossmueller
Software Engineer and IT-Consultant
Hamburg, Germany
http://www.rossmueller.com
