On Friday 13 April 2007 13:32, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > subversion > > Pro: > - Probably the easiest to migrate to because we can still use the > keyword method for (1) even though we have to adapt it somehow > - easier branching and merging than CVS. Still painful compared to > "new" VCS. > - allows checkout of random subdirectories > - Pretty stable from a client POV AFAICT > - all in all very similar to CVS. Contributors don't have to > learn much new stuff
- most translators are very comfortable using SVN, which is almost certainly not true for the other options - if put on alioth allows for easier maintenance of who has commit access (independent of DSA) > Contra: > - Doesn't really allow for decentralised development. SVK is > kinda a solution but a hack none-the-less Which we don't really need for the website anyway IMO. > - all in all very similar to CVS. Is it really worth the effort? Yes, in my experience SVN is a lot simpler to use than CVS and also a lot more robust. Personally I am strongly in favor of a migration to SVN and would be against a migration to anything other than SVN. Cheers, FJP
pgpCdutdK6Opq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
