Um, because svn is not conducive to community development. In
order to branch, I must first have commit access. In order to obtain
commit access, I must first demonstrate that I'm worthy to be in the
small official circle of developers.
During the initial "proving" stage, I have to build a manual
workflow around maintaining my own changes and rebasing them over or
merging them with the upstream changes. This already requires tools
beyond what subversion offers.
In the longer term, we're either cluttering up the official repo
with tons of experimental branches, or we're just not experimenting.
Either way, we're only doing so with the elite core or the really
determined (and only when connectivity and availability allow, which
it often doesn't).
--
Dustin Sallings (mobile)
On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:18, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dormando wrote:
I despise SVN. I do believe in restricting access to the main
repository, SVN does not make collaborative development very easy.
I personally use git while working on memcached. I import the repo
via git-svn, do all of my branch/etc work in native git, then `git-
svn dcommit` my data back to SVN when it's ready.
What problem do you have with using svn directly if you branch for
releases and don't insist on the trunk always being in a clean state
- and branch for changes you expect to be disruptive, or per
developer if the work needs to be isolated for a while?
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
