Moving to SubVersion

[Richard Smith]

On Saturday 09 October 2004 08:45, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> > 1. What specific problems with our current version control system are we
> > trying to solve?
>
> When we start library cleanup after the release of KDE 3.4, we'll have
> to move and rename a lot of files and that's a PITA with CVS.
> Furthermore SVN supports nice features like a hidden repository on your
> hd, so you don't have to connect to the server everytime just to see
> which files have been changed, that's a huge advantage when you're
> travelling (e.g. by train) without an internet connection.

Free software RCSs with these properties: Aegis, Arch, DARCS, Monotone, SVN, 
Vesta.

> > 2. Who is going to do the evaluation work to tell which of the options
> > best solves those problems?
>
> IMHO the biggest advantage of SVN is that the command syntax is nearly
> the same like in CVS and the developers of CVS have enough expiriences
> with version control systems from their former projects.

OTOH the biggest advantage of, say, DARCS is that it's so simple to use that 
someone with practically no revision control experience can start using it in 
about 5 minutes. And someone with CVS experience can learn it in about half 
that time. I've been using CVS for years, and there's still things in it I 
don't understand. I've used DARCS for about four days of project-time and I 
have a good grasp on pretty much everything it does.

I'm not saying we should switch to DARCS. I know of no way that we can keep 
our CVS history if we do, other than keeping CVS around. But I do think that 
one of the problems with CVS we should be trying to solve is that it's too 
complicated to use, and you can't solve that and keep the syntax the same. 
Which is more important, the transition period or the rest of the lifetime of 
the new system?

Thanks,
Richard