incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Erenkrantz" <>
Subject Re: Subversion vs other source control systems
Date Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:19:47 GMT
On Feb 18, 2008 10:48 AM, Santiago Gala <> wrote:
> outright FUD? Sorry but I don't think there is Fear, Uncertainty or
> Doubt in this thread. There are several testimonies of good experiences

I feel there has been lots of FUD and if you don't realize that, then
I recommend taking a step back.

> Not in my copies (I tested Gentoo linux amd64, subversion-1.4.6, and a
> different 1.4.3 Mandriva rpm). I guess they don't ship "contrib" stuff.
> Well, I tried svk, git, mercurial and bzr. I am even using darcs because
> of some openID code I track. I prefer git, even when forced to use
> git-svn, to svk. Still, I will try to look into, I found it
> here

That's ancient. lives in the subversion codebase:

In Ubuntu, it's part of subversion-tools package.  I don't profess to
know where your OS ships it, but Ubuntu has it available for one.  I
don't know how current that is, but it's there...

> Linus Torvalds discusses extensively work flow processes in
> , and I think he is
> mostly right in the fact that distribution is the way to go, and not
> just because of disconnected operation. In one of the projects I track
> and patch, I don't commit myself, but I have contributed a number of
> components and patches and I keep ongoing patches. I would never be able
> to use without the ability to create branches or commit.

Linus has his own ideas how a projects should run which are not, uh,
quite compatible with how Apache projects operate.  In other words,
there is one VIP who cuts all releases or holds onto the 'official'
repository.  Distributed SCMs are often ideal for ego-centric open
source.  -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message