Moving to SubVersion

[Brad Hards]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:40 am, Richard Smith wrote:
> 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.
I'm sure not even Martin Pool (distcc, rsync, other great projects) would 
claim that is is unbiased, but you might like to read some of his blogging on 
VC.
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc?flav=index
> > 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.
Familiarity with the command syntax / workflow should be though. We have a lot 
of people who don't know much version control (perhaps just cvs checkout, cvs 
up, cvs diff, cvs commit) - especially in doco and translation teams. It 
would be handy if the same basic commands "just worked".

> 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.
I have three issues:
1. What specific problems with our current version control system are we 
trying to solve?
2. Who is going to do the evaluation work to tell which of the options best 
solves those problems?
3. Who is going to do the migration task, including providing support and 
documentation for everyone involved in KDE development?

Brad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20041009/1c88ec5c/attachment.sig>