[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 08:56, John Wells wrote:
> I'm in a position to decide on a versioning control system for our
> company's dev team. Naturally, my first thought was CVS, but I've seen a
> few blips for Subversion (subversion.tigris.org) and must say I like some
> of the features (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/html-chunk/ch01s03.html).
> Anyone out there using Subversion? What's your experience regarding
> stability and usefulness? Any caveats or kudos?
I've not used it, but it's been self-hosting for over a year now.
That's got to be a testimony, but see below.
Caveat: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
a rigged demo ;-)
As I recall the story, Linus wanted a specific feature that didn't
exist in ANY version control system at the time, and I don't know if
I'll be able to explain it properly or not, but here goes:
given a kernel driver/feature/project,
fork it: one branch shows up in the "standard" kernel
the other one is developed
continue accepting patches for both branches
when the "new" branch is "ready", logically swap the
branches, then drop the "old" one.
or something like that. The developer of BitKeeper, what's-his-name was
visiting Linus and the began a discussion that resulted in the
development of BitKeeper, BitMover (the company), and ultimatly, fights
between what's-his-name and most of the linux kernel community :-(.
The main problem(s) with CVS is that it doesn't understand file
meta-information. For example, you can't rename a file. Well, you can,
but you must know what you're doing. Renaming a directory is even
harder. But, it'll handle file changes like a champ.
Have I rambled enough? Sorry.
Up the Universe!
kernel, n.: A part of an operating system that preserves the
medieval traditions of sorcery and black art.