SVN

I’ll happily add myself to the chorus: switching to SVN? Someone must
have been drinking out of the potty.

If we are going to suffer the pain of a conversion, then we have better get a lot out of it.

  • Retraining. We all know cvs’ quirks. (And my fingers like to type c-v-s.)
  • Lost history. None of the conversion tools are perfect.
  • Recoding. Custom scripts will have to be recoded.

These apply to all systems (except cvs). The trouble with SVN
is that it is hard to see it as more than a stepping stone.

Dave, if the only argument that people have against it is that “everyone knows that distributed’s better” is what you believe, then you have not been listening. Start with KeithP’s write-up saying, in part, that (1) SVN lacks corruption detection,
(2) Git is a whole lot faster than SVN, and (3) SVN is a space pig compared to Git.

By the way, why is it relevant whether most distributions include the system by default? We expect, from time to time, that developers have HEAD versions of various off-site libraries, so surely we can get the same developers to obtain a recent copy of Git (etc.), right?

So can we please have git and gitweb running somewhere on gnome.org
with access to, say, ~user/public_git/ directories? I promise that I will not complain too much about SVN if that happens.

Comments are closed.