Projects / Subversion / Comments

Comments for Subversion

06 Nov 2003 14:36 cduffy

Stability

> SVN is very, very stable. We are just
> super conservative with how we label the
> project. We don't want to misrepresent,
> and we want to install confidence. Thus,
> we aren't shoving a 1.0 out the door
> just because we feel like it.


I've had too many client-side failures trying to check out svn repositories and cases where I had to rm and re-checkout a repository I'd already grabbed (which suddenly decided it didn't want to update) to agree with that statement.

(I track debian-unstable, so I'm fairly sure that at the times when these errors occurred I did in fact have a current svn client build).

09 Oct 2003 15:57 gstein

Re: Ahh, we *certainly* do need a CVS replacement...

> Folks looking for a modern, Free
> Software revision control system might
> be well served to also consider GNU
> Arch,

Hey, thanks for trying to advertise another solution here. Please keep this kind of stuff to your own FM entries.

> blah feature this blah feature that blah

The two have different feature sets because of different design goals. Any sort of comparison, or even worse, trying to position one as better than the other, in this small space is just silly. Don't even try.

> In my experience, tla (the
> modern arch implementation) is also more
> stable.

SVN is very, very stable. We are just super conservative with how we label the project. We don't want to misrepresent, and we want to install confidence. Thus, we aren't shoving a 1.0 out the door just because we feel like it.

I'd be alright with saying arch is "just as stable" because it might match our stability. I don't have any info to say if arch is less, but I know it can't be more.

> Don't get me wrong -- having a

Don't get me wrong... you're just here to push your solution to people who are looking at the Freshmeat entry for Subversion. That is not very social of you.


The simple answer is that SVN has targeted a very specific design model that works for a large group of people. That model looks and feels a lot like CVS simply because we want it to. We want people to feel comfortable switching. If you don't like that, then you're free to use other systems. But don't come here and criticize or dump on SVN, and even worse: don't use this area as an advertisement for your own preferred system.

09 Oct 2003 15:02 cduffy

Ahh, we *certainly* do need a CVS replacement...
...but the goal of "CVS without the warts" (which seems pretty much like what Subversion wants to be) is perhaps shooting a bit low.

Folks looking for a modern, Free Software revision control system might be well served to also consider <A HREF="http://gnuarch.org/">GNU Arch</A>, a revision control system with somewhat higher goals (including distributed repository support a la BitKeeper, some very high-end merge algorithms, dumb server support (so *any* WebDAV/sftp/ftp server can be an arch repository server without unmodified) and quite a bit of community support. In my experience, tla (the modern arch implementation) is also more stable.

Don't get me wrong -- having a changeset-based revision control system with similar usage to CVS but lacking its worst flaws is a Very Good Thing -- but it's also possible to aim higher, and SVN (best I can tell) really doesn't do that.

25 Oct 2002 17:50 gstein

Re: Thoughts
The installation requirements will become easier over time, as the dependencies become readily available. For example, RedHat 8.0 now installs DB 4.0. Also note that SuSE 8.1 includes Subversion packages. Similar for Debian and other linux distributions.


A pluggable database is already planned for a release after 1.0, and some people are even working on it today.


Note sure about Katie, though. Got enough to do for 1.0 :-), but would be interested in seeing somebody try it out.

25 Oct 2002 13:05 myg

Thoughts
Subversion seems very impressive. The idea of the copy-on-write semantics that give you labling and branching are quite well thought-out.

My only complaints about subversion are that it is difficult to install with so many required packages. I also wish the DB was pluggable.

This would be a great project to combine with Katie, the open-source ClearCase clone. You could really export the Subversion filesystem as a filesystem and have little queries based on properties.

That would be quite powerful.

18 Jan 2002 11:03 proskin

Very important project
I want to thank everyone working on the project. It is very important for the community. I've been working with CVS for years and I know that it has limitations that cannot be eliminated without redesigning CVS and breaking compatibility. Besides, CVS was developed without security in mind, and as we all know, one cannot add security later.
An open-sourced, full-featured, secure by design version control system is needed badly.
Good job!

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.