[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: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:41:19 -0500

For the sake of those that don't know, Joe is a member of the Apache
Infrastructure team, where it becomes partly his responsibility to influence
and support decisions about such things as which version control systems are
available to projects hosted at Apache.

I don't get the sense that he's merely speaking as someone interested in
mouthing off opinions about version control systems. He's looking to ensure
that Apache projects get the best VC offering possible. Today, that's
Subversion, and Joe appears interested in helping us maintain that position
by making Subversion even better with intent (rather than merely adhoc
noodling and Darwinistic improvements).

(Sorry, Joe, if I've mischaracterized you, your role, or your intent here.)

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- 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).

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2010-01-18 21:41:58 CET

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