Re: Switching to Subversion

[Sascha Wilde]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Sascha Wilde <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
>> In fact, at this point of time there is no support for most free
>> distributed SCMs (git, bazar, bazar ng, darcs, monotone, mercurial
>> ...) in stock Emacs, it would be a big loss if this would be a
>> reason to rule out all of them.
>
> Disagree.  We need stability, dependability 

Ack -- not the disagree of cause... ;-)

> and a proven track record
> for interaction with Emacs. 

I don't see how this would be any more the case for SVN than
mercurial.  In fact, I don't see how this could be the case for _any_
other SCM than CVS, which would imply not to change the main SCM --
which IMO _is_ a serious option.

> We don't have the manpower to fix a bad choice. 

Are you talking about the SCM or about the Emacs support for the SCM
here?  In the later case I don't fully agree, most parts of Emacs get
constantly improved mainly because people actually (have to) use them.

> A lack of a
> well-established feasibility for large-scale projects

I would say, this is the case for mercurial, not only by personal
experience, but from the references, too:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ProjectsUsingMercurial

> in combination
> with Emacs

as said before, I don't see how to prove this point, apart from emacs
there are very few projects where the frontend tools used by the
developers are well known...

I do use mercurial together with DVC, and think that it is sufficient
usable, there might be glitches, but even PCVS has its glitches,
doesn't it?

> and a number of operating systems is, in my opinion, a
> definite reason to rule out any system.

Mercurial is written in python and well tested on many platforms.  I
used it my self on GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Solaris, HP-UX and AIX -- and
Windows is supported, too.

cheers
sascha
-- 
Sascha Wilde

A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.