Comments on: SVN migration

By: Marius Gedminas

Marius Gedminas — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

bzr and baz-ng (actually, bazaar-ng) is one and the same. bzr is the command name, Bazaar 2.0 (previously Bazaar NG) is the project name. Sort of like svn and Subversion.

I think the future belongs to either bzr or git. The present belongs to Subversion, which has proven itself in the field. Just stay away from Subversion's bsddb backend!

Have you read Keith Packard's blog posts about choosing the revision control system for X.org? They're worth reading:

http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html

http://keithp.com/blog/Tyrannical_SCM_selection.html

(hmm, I don't see a 'Preview' button...)

By: Germán Poo-Caamaño

Germán Poo-Caamaño — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

> Obviously there’s some argument about the Right Way to do
> distributed version control – otherwise, why so many to
> choose from?

Please, don’t use such argument. In that case, use Windows, because there are some many Linux distributions.

The only strong argument to use SVN instead anyother tool, is because there is one sysadmin working in SVN but nobody else has taken the job to test other tools. That’s enough.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

> Also, none of those systems has reached a level of maturity and acceptance that you can reasonably expect every developer to have it installed – so you’re adding an entry barrier (compiling the revision control system) for everyone who you want to build your stuff.

All the major distributions have packaged already.

By: Mikael Hallendal

Mikael Hallendal — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t buy the argument that the barrier of having to install another version control system is going to make anyone turn in the door. And for those that don’t having Subversion it’s a huge beast to install.

I do however agree that going with Subversion for the bulk of GNOME makes a lot of sense. Simply because of it’s similarity to CVS but with features that people have requested for a long time.

By: Simon Howard

Simon Howard — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Considering that Gnome consists of a bunch of independent(ish) modules maintained by separate users, the question I have to ask is: why all the fighting over which version control system to use? Can’t different projects use different systems?

There are two types of version control system as I see them: the centralised CVS/Subversion approach and the decentralised Git approach. Subversion is good because it’s a “better CVS” – it provides an upgrade path for existing users, which means that the projects hosted on cvs.gnome.org don’t need to change their development processes. As a centralised version control system, it’s pretty decent – I doubt you’ll find many others better.

Now, Git (and other decentralised systems) do have distinct advantages. It seems to me that the best way to introduce decentralised development is for individual maintainers to change their projects over. If enough people do so, Gnome should consider adding a git repository.

I do not dispute the advantages of Git-like version control systems in any way, but the Subversion migration isn’t the place to promote it. Switch your projects over to Git, get a large body of people using it, make it the common practise _then_ deprecate the older Subversion repository.