Joerg Pietschmann wrote:

Spam all of the Apache federation's lists with messages how much advantages SubVersion has over CVS. :-) Seriously, there are rumors that a SubVersion repository will be set up as soon as it is considered "ready for production". See http://subversion.tigris.org for more info. I'm sure FOP will move SubVersion soon after the repository is up (committers: any vetoes :-)?

J.Pietschmann

Joerg,

I'm deeply conservative about critical software like the repository. However, when (and if) the Apache repository goes to SubVersion, FOP may be obliged to go with it. If there is a choice, I would be strongly in favour of staying with CVS for at least six months after other projects had gone over, so that they can suffer the pain.

I would say that "ready for production" means that significant codebases have been maintained in SubVersion for long enough for the wrinkles to have appeared and been ironed out. Apache should *not* be one of the "significant codebases" - it's just too important. Apache projects and subprojects should not be testing environments for SubVerion; they have too much to do in being testing environments for themselves.

How long was CVS around before gaining the level of acceptance it now enjoys?

Peter
--
Peter B. West  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to