"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> writes: >projecting a bit into the future what we'd like to see Subversion become, we >offer the following vision statement for your review: > > Subversion exists to be universally recognized and adopted as an > open-source, centralized version control system characterized by its > reliability as a safe haven for valuable data; the simplicity of its > model and usage; and its ability to support the needs of a wide variety > of users and projects, from individuals to large-scale enterprise > operations. > >A shorter, business-card-sized motto (offered as a replacement to the >obsolete "A compelling replacement for CVS") might be: "Enterprise-class >centralized version control for the masses".
A big +1 to the above, Mike, and thanks for writing up this summary. Obviously, what a few people in a room find compelling may or may not persuade the entire community, so I'm not taking any of this as written in stone until it's discussed here. But reading it now, a few days after the discussions, it's still very convincing to me. Subversion can be *the* centralized version control system, and what centralized version control provides is exactly what many organizations need. >ROADMAP > > [... WC-NG WC-NG WC-NG WC-NG "WC-NG" WC-NG WC-NG ...] (Sorry, I might be quoting inaccurately, but I wanted to save space...) I think WC-NG is going to open up room for a lot of good stuff on the client side. I agree with the proposed roadmap, but I'm really glad that the WC-NG stuff comes first and that WC-NG coding is so far along. That plus the repository-sent config stuff in the first two proposed minor releases... > 1.7: WC-NG; HTTPv2; 'svn patch'; typical slew of various bug fixes > > 1.8: repository-dictated configuration; tree conflicts improvements; > WC-NG-enabled stuff (rename tracking, compressed pristines, > shelving/checkpointing, ...) ...would already be a big step in the right direction. I agree with the analysis of the problems caused by having two FS backends; FS-NG will be hard, but it may be necessary. >One proposed solution is a Subversion "planet", to be hosted at a >re-purposed subversion.org. The planet would aggregate feeds from >individual contributors, as well as the various corporate entities >interested in Subversion development. While various commercial interests >(CollabNet, WANdisco, elego, etc.) may compete in some areas, they are all >committed to improving Subversion as a whole. Enterprise users need to see >this unity across Subversion's corporate sponsors, and a communication >stream which interleaves these corporate voices works toward that end. Btw, I looked for an issue filed in Apache Infrastructure about getting the domain pointed to a box where we can install the planet software, but didn't see anything. Have any steps been taken on this yet, or is it "patches welcome" right now? >SUMMARY > >I've covered a lot of ground here, but decisions in this community have >always been and will be made on this mailing list, and they deserve to be >made with as much information as possible. You now know where a small >contingent of developers stand on these issues. I'd like to publicize on >our project website a *community-endorsed* vision and roadmap ASAP, and then >get to the business of moving Subversion forward along those lines. > >So what say you? +1, in case it wasn't obvious. -Karl
