Re: Migrating to Subversion

On lör, 2007-10-06 at 07:35 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:

> > Pros:
> > + Many consider svn to be "overall better" than CVS.
>
> Its branch model is terrible.

Well, it's not worse than CVS imho, but not noticeably better either.
The CVS model of branches/tags is reasonable to work with, but
implementation a bit too fragile..

The main problem I have with CVS is the branch model, and since SVN is
not much better it's not seen as an alternative for me. The gains of
switching to Subversion compared to CVS is pretty minimal.

> > Cons:
> > - Some consider svn to be "overall worse" than CVS.
>
> I am one of those, especially when the cvsnt groups' work is considered.

I don't consider SVN worse than CVS. It's in many regards better, but it
do not solve the problems we have with CVS, only other problems which
isn't that noticeable.

> I'd really encourage a migration to bzr, http://bazaar-vcs.org/, if we
> are to migrate at all.

bzr and git is the only two left standing on my list of choices. Neither
is perfect, but both significantly better than most other.. with bzr
being the main candidate.

On a related note the Samba project is currently migrating to bzr.

> I don't think VCS migration is at all coupled to the 3.1 branching.

Fully agreed. Can be done at any time. Can even be done incrementally
for that matter without too much effort to try things out in more detail
before doing "the big switch". Such setups have already been used
successfully both for bazaar(-ng) and monotone trees,

Regards
Henrik