Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Roland Schwingel]

Hi...

I was loosly following this thread for a while but now I will throw in 
my $0.02 on this...

MJ Ray wrote:
> The drawbacks of SVN remain:
> * non-distributed (same as CVS)
Is this really needed?

> * incompatible with the git-using tools (same as CVS)
Is this a drawback? There are a lot of good tools
for svn. Look at the svn homepage!  I tested git 2 month
ago at home and found subversion to be much more useable.

> * poor library licence limits integration
You don't need to program against it. You need to use it
as repository for GNUStep's sourcecode (checkin/checkout etc).
For me this is is not a drawback like the previous issue you
were throwing in.

> * client at least fivefold more disk, probably bigger in memory too
??? A subversion working copy is bigger then the CVS one, thats true.
But not more than twice! How do you come to that number?

> * not supported at savannah
I heared a rumor a while ago (svn mailing list) they are evaluating it...
But maybe I am wrong with this statement.

> * reconfigure everything now, only to move again soon
I don't think you need to move again after going to svn.

We used CVS for a very long time, but then switched over to SVN 2 years ago,
and we *never* regretted it. We are having several hundred commits a 
month and
SVN is absolutely reliable and fast and it has some major benefits over 
CVS, maybe
other have mentioned this already:
- atomic commits
- deleteable folders
- copy/move files with history(!) without manually hacking the repos
- no more mess with binary files
- customizeable with hooks.
- excellent web frontend thru ViewCVS for diffing changes or browsing 
the repos.
- a lot other excellent clients and tools.
- fast learning and switching from CVS.
- excellent documentation (free SVN book)
- ...

And finally we experienced a noticable productivity gain after the switch

So I think when switching to SVN gnustep would gain also.

Just my $0.02.

Roland