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

Re: Subversion in 2010

From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:22:49 -0800 (PST)

----- Original Message ----

> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer_at_yahoo.com>
> Cc: Mark Mielke <mark_at_mark.mielke.cc>; Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>; Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>; Subversion Dev <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>
> Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 10:01:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Subversion in 2010
> Joe Schaefer writes:
> >What I would like to see from this project is less arguing
> >about irrelevant concepts and more features in the working
> >copy, ideally to make fewer network trips for better performance
> >or to support queued commits so sysadmins need not panic over
> >work stoppages due the the central server being down.
> Not sure I should respond, but:
> First, patches welcome as always.


> Second, while I had time to have the
> (IMHO useful) discussion with Mark, I don't have time to code right now.
> It's not like the alternative was that I'd be writing code (sadly)! :-)

Watching the two of you argue about silly stuff is a distraction
from an otherwise useful thread (for the active devs) to have. I
can tell you from reading a number of incubator lists that the
emerging public view of Subversion in 2010 is not promising for
open source deployments, and if the project can't figure out how
to remain relevant in 2010 that's something that will concern me
when it comes time to make a longer term decision on which version
control tool Apache projects should be using (in say 2011, 2012,
or 2015).

Received on 2010-01-18 20:23:28 CET

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