> Well, I've probably "sold" about two dozen users on subversion, and had
> them go try to check it out, and not a single one of them has even managed
> to set up a test repository. Right now, this is because compiling Subversion
> is a true pain in the ass (to say the least), which is a pretty major
> barrier to entry. I'm sure that I'll actually get some converts when that
> problem goes away (presumably when 1.0 comes around), but subversion has
> plenty of other barriers, some high, some not, but why not lower them a
> bit more if we can, without hurting much?
I completely agree about about the compilation issues. I compile plenty
of software from sources, and subversion took me about 10 times as long
as average to get it right.
On the other hand, so far I have been finding subversion much easier both
to use and administer than CVS.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make subversion
even easier to use. But is it really that difficult for the user to
run a Python or Perl script?
And even if we do implement Feature X in C, I would err on the side of
restraint when it comes to assuming that any given 'default' is going to
suit 'most users'. You see an empty repository as an 'un-useful
default'; i see it as a blank slate, and think it is better to provide
such a blank slate than to provide a positive structure that might not
be wanted.
-brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 9 02:40:26 2003