On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > >looked at the Subversion source code? Have you even used Subversion? > > No. Yes (but not much and it was quite a while ago. I was looking at > Agis (sp?), SVN, Bitkeeper (then still in Beta) and quite a few more > tools as a replacement for CVS. I ended up with CVS. :-)
A wise decision -- even with all its idiosyncrasies, CVS is tried and true. > >the code base is excellent, especially for a project only two years old. > > Can't comment on that. Didn't read into it, don't intend to. It's a great example of the Right Way to write C programs. > >> Ah well. CVS it is. :-) > > >As soon as Subversion hits 1.0, the Infrastructure team will install it on > >ASF servers and we will begin to transition over to it. Initial > >preparations have already begun. ... > You might hit a solid "-1" from me until SVN > has actually proved itself in production for at least six months. You must've looked at Subversion quite a while ago. It's been self-hosting for 15 months, 2 weeks, with _zero_ data loss. Now that's eating your own dog food in style! > I will never ever trust a "1.0" release of a tool (no matter which > tool) enough to put all my apples (speak: my source trees) on it. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, Henning -- I put little trust in young software myself. However, you are choosing to ignore the fact that version numbers are often completely arbitrary, especially in commercial or poorly managed open source projects. Subversion has been in development for over two years, and is based around APR, the portable core of Apache httpd which has been in development (originally as the NCSA web server) since the early 1990's. Subversion's 1.0 release will be a solid replacement for CVS. ... > Don't get me wrong. I'd love to get a better OSS tool than CVS for > SCM. I'd love to be able to use BitKeeper (where the open licensing > is unacceptable to me and the cost of about $5000+ per seat per year > is too much for a small company like us). But CVS is release 1.11 on > almost ten solid years of experience. No way I will trade this for a > tool which "just hit 1.0". I'm reminded of the old adage "don't judge a book by its cover." As a user of Subversion for over 2 years now, like most of the Infrastructure crew I'm judging it on its performance, not on the stigma associated with the label of "version 1.0". - Dan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
