On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> wrote: > >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main > >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size. > > > > Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to > the > > problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, > working > > closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get > > Subversion working for the ASF. We've often been their canary in the > coal > > mine. :-) > > Right. I know that the Apache Subversion team would love to hear about > any problems. > > As Noel mentions, the ASF repository is quite huge. We're over 1.1 > million revisions, containing a couple hundred projects and millions > and millions of lines of code. We've got international replication, > backups, security, awesome admins, and a development team to keep it > all running smoothly. > > I can understand people desiring the Git style of workflow, but that > is different from a problem inherent to Subversion itself. So... if > you guys *did* have issues with the tool, then we'd really like to > know! > > "I can fix it... my dad's got an awesome set of tools..." > Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent bi-directional merges between the different platforms where OOo is semi-independently implemented. The nature of the project makes a DVCS much more suitable which is why we switched to Mercurial and not Subversion originally - Subversion was very popular for other projects at Sun. S.
