SVN != CVS++ was: Re: Build management

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>]

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Actually, I cringe when I hear people say that.  :)  So many people wrote
> off CVS for "real" SCM work because of problems with it that we're fixing
> (I won't give the obvious list).  So when those people hear "we're
> rewriting CVS", they might perceive that as a strong reason to ignore SVN
> now as well as down the road.  So I think we're significantly
> shortchanging SVN when we say it's a "CVS replacement".

I agree with Brian here.  I've talked to some people here at ICSE
(IEEE Conf. on Sw. Eng. where I am this week).  It seems that some
people in SCM are proposing new versioning solutions because "CVS
isn't good enough" and, dismissing SVN because after all, "SVN is
just CVS++."  I think that's a misconception we have to fight.  A
lot of the obstacles that prevents usage of CVS in research work
have been fixed (IMHO) in SVN (extensibility is a real good place
to start).

I'll try to go to the SCM impact presentation on Friday to see what
the eggheads are talking about.  I doubt there'll be anything of
interest to SVN, but you never know.  Like Fitz, I'll try to
evangelize SVN where I can.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: SVN != CVS++ was: Re: Build management

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Heh. When I said, "we're writing a CVS replacment", I didn't mean that we
were *simply* replacing CVS. That statement is not limiting in any way. You
can replace a 1947 Ford with a 2002 Corvette. Darn small minds :-)

My statement was more like: "we're writing a CVS replacment [that kicks its
ass from here till next Tuesday]"

That said, I'll endeavor to be clearer next time so that people won't
miscontrue what I mean. Let's see... maybe something like "we're writing a
kickass version control system to give the big smackdown to CVS".

[ and no... we're still not writing a build management tool *at this time* ]

Cheers,
-g

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:59:45PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Actually, I cringe when I hear people say that.  :)  So many people wrote
> > off CVS for "real" SCM work because of problems with it that we're fixing
> > (I won't give the obvious list).  So when those people hear "we're
> > rewriting CVS", they might perceive that as a strong reason to ignore SVN
> > now as well as down the road.  So I think we're significantly
> > shortchanging SVN when we say it's a "CVS replacement".
> 
> I agree with Brian here.  I've talked to some people here at ICSE
> (IEEE Conf. on Sw. Eng. where I am this week).  It seems that some
> people in SCM are proposing new versioning solutions because "CVS
> isn't good enough" and, dismissing SVN because after all, "SVN is
> just CVS++."  I think that's a misconception we have to fight.  A
> lot of the obstacles that prevents usage of CVS in research work
> have been fixed (IMHO) in SVN (extensibility is a real good place
> to start).
> 
> I'll try to go to the SCM impact presentation on Friday to see what
> the eggheads are talking about.  I doubt there'll be anything of
> interest to SVN, but you never know.  Like Fitz, I'll try to
> evangelize SVN where I can.  -- justin

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org