[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] subversion vs. cvs (vs. arch) over on pgsql-hackers

From: Dustin Sallings
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] subversion vs. cvs (vs. arch) over on pgsql-hackers
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:37:31 -0800

A discussion morphed into a revision control system argument over on the postgresql hackers list in the last couple of days. I played the part of the arch advocate (hopefully well enough to at least get someone to look at it).

A lot of it was ``why should we switch from CVS?'' I wasn't arguing for a switch from CVS, but that moving from CVS to CVS++ won't necessarily take them very far. Projects like postgresql with developers all over the world seem to be an ideal match for distributed revision control.

        Some interesting things came out of it:

* It can't be considered it if it doesn't run on Windows (I can't comment much on this one other than it seems to work at least as well as postgres does on Windows, but it's all second-hand knowledge).

        * arch is more ``complicated'' than svn

        * Decentralized revision control makes things harder.

There was also my argument that distributed systems support centralized development, but not vice-versa to which someone responded ``that is what svk does.'' I'm not at all familiar with svk, but it describes itself thusly:

``svk is a decentralized version control system written in Perl. It uses the subversion filesystem but provides some other powerful features.''

Personally, I don't understand the strong attraction to svn. I mean, I was really excited about it until I couldn't get all of the dependencies working to try it initially, and then I found something more simple that does more. Perhaps it's one of those ``ignorance is bliss'' issues.

        Pointers to some of the threads:

Dustin Sallings

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]