[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:29:16 +0200 |
On 11. Okt 2005, at 17:52 Uhr, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
1 - I don't think CVS is scaring people away, and I don't
think changing version control system is going to attract more
developers.
Probably true, yes.
2 - Last time I looked, subversion did not keep track of merges,
so trying to do multiple merges back and forth between
branches is still a nightmare.
Not sure what you mean / where the problem is, but merging works fine
for us.
3 - Last time I looked, subversion was not great at operating
in a disconnected distributed way.
Subversion is just a better CVS, not a completely new approach to
version control. So yes, but this is IMHO a good thing because you
get a good set of features (/bugfixes) w/o a lot of work.
Its basically like "upgrading to CVS 2.0" instead of enforcing a
completely new approach.
4 - From what I heard, git's user interface is still a bit
rough around the edges, and I am not sure how well
git supports the Microsoft Windows platform
or MacOSX.
5 - gnuarch has also a problem with supporting Microsoft Windows
and the userinterface took some getting used to.
I agree that those tools have "interesting concepts" which might be
well superior to what is provided by CVS/Svn. But you also need to
learn them, which will consume quite a lot of time until everyone
gets it right. And then those new ideas still seem to be very much in
flux (with new tools/forks/xyz popping up every month).
IMHO using such indeed has the potential to move developers away. I
would really suggest to stay with CVS in this case.
Subversion is almost the same like CVS just with a lot of fixed
edges. Everyone who knows CVS can immediatly work with Svn and then
have additional features at a very low learning curve. Svn also has
very good (and free) documentation.
We have moved OGo from CVS to Svn about a year ago and it was a huge
success for plenty of reasons. Everyone loves it over CVS.
So I can recommend doing this step from a technical POV. Its a
reasonable amount of migration work with quite a good gain in features.
Greets,
Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org
Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, MJ Ray, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Andrew Ruder, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Wim Oudshoorn, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Andrew Ruder, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration,
Helge Hess <=
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Wim Oudshoorn, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Helge Hess, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Andrew Ruder, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Alex Perez, 2005/10/11
- Message not available
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, MJ Ray, 2005/10/11
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Jeremy Tregunna, 2005/10/12
- Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Alex Perez, 2005/10/12
Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Markus Hitter, 2005/10/12
Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Nicolas Roard, 2005/10/12
Message not availableMessage not availableMessage not availableMessage not availableRe: Proposal: Subversion Migration, Jeremy Tregunna, 2005/10/12