[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Reality check [was: Re: merge tracking use cases]

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2007-12-01 14:41:23 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 6:15 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, this is what the plan has been for quite a while now.
>> I'm glad to hear you say this :-). But, others seem to think
>> differently, so it's important we hear from them too...
> I'm not sure what to say, guys. So much drama in such a small period
> of time. Eesh.
> I know it's ridiculous (and rude) for a bunch of people who haven't
> been paying attention to merge-tracking details show up at the last
> minute and challenge a bunch of decisions that were made months ago...

... but I'm going to be even ruder and more ridiculous anyway. Guys ...
deferring basic functionality that everyone else (except CVS and
SourceSafe) takes for granted -- after almost two years spent working
heavily on merge tracking -- is a bit of a bore. Even more so because
there's already an efficient way of doing merges right with a Subversion
repository: it's called git-svn and works like a charm. Oh, and of
course there's svk.

Let's face it. 4 years after 1.0, and a year after our svn-2.0-focused
summit, Subversion is treading water. In the last two years, have we
added *any* feature that's more useful than the code bloat it produced?
We've not even solved the relatively simple problem of working correctly
on case-insensitive filesystems -- which just happens to include about
99% of all computers in the world, according to latest estimates. Many
version control projects that didn't even exist when svn-1.0 came out
have caught up and surpassed Subversion in terms of version control
functionality, performance and (!) reliability, while we've wasted time
with non-profit corporations and trademark protection.

I'm not going to try to analyze the reasons here, except to note that
losing sight of the ball does not help, nor does resting on laurels.
Quite frankly, if I were setting up a configuration management
infrastructure from scratch today, I'd probably not select Subversion as
the version control system; that's how far things have gone off course.

So ... we've made many wrong decisions, and I admit to making or
supporting quite a few of them. But I don't see any reason for
perpetuating them. So I suggest you (we?) all take a step back and
*seriously* start moving in the right direction; otherwise in the next
few years, Subversion and CVS will be jostling for the best position in
the dinosaur exhibit of the trash-heap of history.

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 1 14:41:51 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.