Niclas Hedhman wrote: > What state is Subversion in right now?
> I'm surprised that it is anywhere near as stable and reliable as CVS. See: http://subversion.tigris.org/project_faq.html#stable By all reports from the people who arguably know both SCMs better than anyone (CollabNet, the people who are developing Subversion to replace CVS), SVN is apparently incredibly reliable where it counts most: the source repository. Good enough that we are already hosting and migrating projects, although not yet in a massive scale. Just as the proposal here was just to put a part of Avalon into Subversion. > Which platforms have been truly tested and which binary packages > are available? See: http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html > Please don't forget that for [linux using developers] there > is ZERO effort to get CVS running. This is not the case > with subversion Already in the standard distribution mechanisms for Fedora, debian and FreeBSD. > What benefit does subversion bring that CVS can not fulfill, > and Why is this important to us? Lots, especially when re-factoring code, which CVS is largely incapable of supporting without losing history. I do sympathize with the issue about IDE support, although of course if you were using emacs as you should be (<<grin>>) you would not have such concerns. I see client support as the next biggest thing that has to happen, and should now that the interfaces are stabilizing. But futures aside, there is IDE support and we are only talking about migrating a portion of Avalon code. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
