On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:46, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > > > > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;) > > > > I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :) > > > > I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think > > it was a lot better than CVS. > > i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project > in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure > people. for instance, aside from the history import aspect, > how does it mesh with viewcvs? the equivalent of anoncvs? and > do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms > systems on collab, plus prototype all the infrastructural glue > necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories? > > i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on > it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but > i don't think we should go it alone.
I'm totally with you here. I was just assuming that if it is even possible at all to use subversion @ apache, that's because there's kind folks in the infrastructure team who have set it up and are willing to do help out :) I believe 'user usability' of subversion is somewhat lower than for cvs (like no ide plugins or GUIs). I don't know the status of the projects that are working on all that. I don't care for all that myself, but if there are people that do, to an extend where apache commons might be hurt because they won't use subversion (and it seems that is the case)....that's another clear no-go imho. regards, Leo
