Leo Simons wrote: > > > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;) > > I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :) > > I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think > it was a lot better than CVS.
i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure people. for instance, aside from the history import aspect, how does it mesh with viewcvs? the equivalent of anoncvs? and do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms systems on collab, plus prototype all the infrastructural glue necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories? i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but i don't think we should go it alone.
