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

[Dustin Sallings]

	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:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01044.php

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01077.php

--
Dustin Sallings