On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Brian Jackson wrote: > > > We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel > > trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch, > > and others isn't either). > > Once you decide to dump CVS, backward compability and user familiarity are > removed as relevant problems. What are the other obstacles to using > Subversion or arch?
I really am interested in seeing the technical merits and failures of some of the systems discussed without reference to the political issues. What are the failures of Subversion and/or arch? To my mind, the web server dependency of subversion was a negative because I was always dealing with small projects. However, I could see where bundling this stuff up into a webserver could be a bonus for a large project who already maintains their own web server. arch used to have the problem of some absolutely abysmal performance because it was just a bunch of shell scripts. However, it has evolved quite a bit and had some C code rewrites. What other issues are there with using it? -a -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
