Moving to SubVersion

[Richard Smith]

On Saturday 09 October 2004 00:10, Mickael Marchand wrote:
> Richard Smith a écrit :
> | On Friday 08 October 2004 19:31, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> |>So I want to ask again, when do we move the KDE repository to
> |>subversion?
> | The Arch wiki has a more interesting comparison of CVS, svn, svk
> | and Arch:
> |
> | http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/SubVersionAndCvsComparison
>
> don't take it badly, but, do you really think that taking a comparison
> from wiki.gnuarch.org can really be objective ? ;)

No, but I don't expect to find *any* objective comparisons anywhere. Everyone 
has an agenda, and hopefully we're all grown up enough to notice when what 
we're reading has a lot of spin on it. But that page does contain quite a lot 
of factual content, which I think is worth reading.

> anyway I think most of us (at least those who spoke tonight) prefer
> subversion because it is cvs-like in the spirit.

So is CVS. And we already have that. I don't think being similar to the system 
we're trying to replace should be a selection criterion.

> Moreover, if i understood correctly (did I ?) you can use svk on top of
> subversion so people wanting a decentralised repos can use it too while
> others use the main repository directly

Sure. But AFAICT svk is rather immature and poorly documented, and you have 
the centralized/decentralized choice with Arch too.

All I'm saying is that we should try out more than one option before 
switching. If we find problems in SVN, they're likely to not be significant 
enough to make us change again, so we'll have to put up with them. Therefore 
it's better to find and avoid them now.

If someone has a good argument for or against SVN, Arch or something else, 
please speak up.

Thanks,
Richard