On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Actually, I cringe when I hear people say that. :) So many people wrote
> off CVS for "real" SCM work because of problems with it that we're fixing
> (I won't give the obvious list). So when those people hear "we're
> rewriting CVS", they might perceive that as a strong reason to ignore SVN
> now as well as down the road. So I think we're significantly
> shortchanging SVN when we say it's a "CVS replacement".
I agree with Brian here. I've talked to some people here at ICSE
(IEEE Conf. on Sw. Eng. where I am this week). It seems that some
people in SCM are proposing new versioning solutions because "CVS
isn't good enough" and, dismissing SVN because after all, "SVN is
just CVS++." I think that's a misconception we have to fight. A
lot of the obstacles that prevents usage of CVS in research work
have been fixed (IMHO) in SVN (extensibility is a real good place
to start).
I'll try to go to the SCM impact presentation on Friday to see what
the eggheads are talking about. I doubt there'll be anything of
interest to SVN, but you never know. Like Fitz, I'll try to
evangelize SVN where I can. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 22 01:00:45 2002