Re: Logging granularity

maru wrote:

>So out of curiosity, is svn targetted only at making a better cvs? I thought the idea was to make something truly world-beating.
>
Actually, we want to do both. :-)

> It's a solid, well-designed application. You harp on how much better its approach is to cvs. But why set your benchmark so low? Why not acknowledge that the real target is to match best-of-breed tools like bitkeeper or perforce? Subversion has the potential to be the _best_ scm, not just the best _free_ scm. If your only example is cvs, I'd say pretty much anything would impress you.
>
The "better CVS" idea is a goal for Subversion 1.0, not for Subversion
in general. We chose this goal for many reasons; IMHO the most important
one is that lots and lots of people out there are used to and
comfortable with the CVS wroking model, so if we implement that model in
a much better way, we have an instant user base. (Incidentally, rumours
circulating on the 'net seem to indicate we guessed right about this one.)

Our long-term goal is everything you propose and more. I'd even hazard a
guess that more than one SVN developer has a secret plan for Subversion
to supplant BitKeeper as the Linux Kernel version control system. :-)

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org