"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
>projecting a bit into the future what we'd like to see Subversion become, we
>offer the following vision statement for your review:
>
> Subversion exists to be universally recognized and adopted as an
> open-source, centralized version control system characterized by its
> reliability as a safe haven for valuable data; the simplicity of its
> model and usage; and its ability to support the needs of a wide variety
> of users and projects, from individuals to large-scale enterprise
> operations.
>
>A shorter, business-card-sized motto (offered as a replacement to the
>obsolete "A compelling replacement for CVS") might be: "Enterprise-class
>centralized version control for the masses".
A big +1 to the above, Mike, and thanks for writing up this summary.
Obviously, what a few people in a room find compelling may or may not
persuade the entire community, so I'm not taking any of this as written
in stone until it's discussed here. But reading it now, a few days
after the discussions, it's still very convincing to me. Subversion can
be *the* centralized version control system, and what centralized
version control provides is exactly what many organizations need.
>ROADMAP
>
> [... WC-NG WC-NG WC-NG WC-NG "WC-NG" WC-NG WC-NG ...]
(Sorry, I might be quoting inaccurately, but I wanted to save space...)
I think WC-NG is going to open up room for a lot of good stuff on the
client side. I agree with the proposed roadmap, but I'm really glad
that the WC-NG stuff comes first and that WC-NG coding is so far along.
That plus the repository-sent config stuff in the first two proposed
minor releases...
> 1.7: WC-NG; HTTPv2; 'svn patch'; typical slew of various bug fixes
>
> 1.8: repository-dictated configuration; tree conflicts improvements;
> WC-NG-enabled stuff (rename tracking, compressed pristines,
> shelving/checkpointing, ...)
...would already be a big step in the right direction. I agree with the
analysis of the problems caused by having two FS backends; FS-NG will be
hard, but it may be necessary.
>One proposed solution is a Subversion "planet", to be hosted at a
>re-purposed subversion.org. The planet would aggregate feeds from
>individual contributors, as well as the various corporate entities
>interested in Subversion development. While various commercial interests
>(CollabNet, WANdisco, elego, etc.) may compete in some areas, they are all
>committed to improving Subversion as a whole. Enterprise users need to see
>this unity across Subversion's corporate sponsors, and a communication
>stream which interleaves these corporate voices works toward that end.
Btw, I looked for an issue filed in Apache Infrastructure about getting
the domain pointed to a box where we can install the planet software,
but didn't see anything. Have any steps been taken on this yet, or is
it "patches welcome" right now?
>SUMMARY
>
>I've covered a lot of ground here, but decisions in this community have
>always been and will be made on this mailing list, and they deserve to be
>made with as much information as possible. You now know where a small
>contingent of developers stand on these issues. I'd like to publicize on
>our project website a *community-endorsed* vision and roadmap ASAP, and then
>get to the business of moving Subversion forward along those lines.
>
>So what say you?
+1, in case it wasn't obvious.
-Karl
Received on 2010-04-04 05:00:11 CEST