Re: Switching to Subversion

["Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On 11/12/06, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

> It has _excellent_ support for distributed development and
> merging (it's more like arch in that sense, though very different in
> others), two areas where subversion is usually considered weak.

Subversion is weak in both areas, but both will be eventually
addressed. IIRC, there's already work being done in the issue of
merging, and the idea of distributed development (or "decentralized
version control") was talked about in a recent developer's meeting,
judging by the coments in the Subversives blog:

http://svn-dev.blogspot.com/2006/10/decentralized-version-control.html)

> The big downside to git currently
> seem to be a somewhat sharp learning curve at the beginning.

Does it run on Windows?

> [Note, I personally still use arch, but because it doesn't have much
> development momentum behind it at this point, I'd be hesitant to
> recommend it for a major project.]

And, on the other hand, that's one more reason for recommending SVN:
it is easy to use, stable, it's increasingly used in more and more
projects, and development is quite actively pursued. Honestly, I don't
know of another free SCM being, today, where SVN is. In a few years:
sure. But now, most of these systems (git probably excluded) seem too
much one-person efforts (or just-a-few-persons, to be fair).

                    /L/e/k/t/u