Rodney Waldhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My concerns with using SVN are more social than technical.
*nod* > While I think it's pretty clear the SVN is technically superior, it's also > pretty clear that substantially more users, contributors and committers > are going to be familiar with CVS, and have a CVS tool chain set up and > ready to use. Using SVN puts up a barrier (and while not an enormous > barrier, it is not a trivial one either) between those potential > contributors and their contributions. There's a little hump they'll have > to get over. > > The size of this hump may not be significant for "large" projects, like > HTTPD or Tomcat for example, but for tiny little components like those > that comprise apache-jakarta-commons and likely apache-commons as well, > the hump is as big or bigger than the contribution itself. I think it is > likely that many potential contributors will find that hump not worth the > trouble, and potential users, contributors and contributions will be lost. > What I'd like to see is a larger installed based of SVN > *clients*, because I'm afraid too many folks are going to find installing > a SVN client to check out, or contribute a small patch to, a tiny commons > component more trouble than it's worth. I think the way to get to that > installed base is to start with a larger project. Convince a major > project to convert to SVN first. Excellent point, and I suspect that is one of the reasons that Justin agreed to setup a CVS repository for components that transfer to common. -Fitz -- Brian W. Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.red-bean.com/fitz/
