On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0200, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
>arch, subversion, even BitKeeper if it was free, would perhaps be better
>than CVS; I'm not arguing against that. Just that CVS and read-only
>access aren't as great deterrents as you make it sound. Just take a look
>at the very big and successful projects whose source control system is
>CVS. Anyway, if I had to vote, I'd chose to wait for subversion.

We built la Sagrada Familia in Barcelona with pick axes, trowels and
spades, so there really isn't that great a benefit to using backhoes,
cranes, and dumptrucks.

>But even now there are people who does big contributions (I mean, not
>tiny patches of 5-10 lines, but changes of hundreds or thousands of
>lines) and who do not have write access nor (seem to) want it.

This isn't about write access; this is about having your local branch be
under revision control in a form that is really easy for the main branch
to pull in and merge, and that anyone can download if they want to.

Arch is about making branching a non-hostile and not necessarily
permanent act; it is about allowing many different threads of
developement to grow in parallel, instead of each fork diverging
irrevocably into different sunsets.

Jonathan

-- 

    It's not true unless it makes you laugh,                           
             but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.      

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw@reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2