SVN battle plan? was Re: [development] bzr battle plan
adrinux at gmail.com
Thu Nov 24 12:57:37 UTC 2005
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
> but I really do think we need to
> give cvs the boot. SVN is far simpler to comprehend, and script.
Indeed, I really think CVS actually does harm in the confusion it causes for new
users. SVN is a little bit more intuitive, and it's easier to fix mistakes
(versioned directories, "svn move" and "svn rename").
But we are left with the same questions:
Will Dries ever approve the move to SVN?
What would it take for that to happen?
What do we need to do to make it happen?
I have to point out that we are probably already loosing out because of sticking
with CVS. I for one don't use drupal.org's CVS for my development (one unpopular
module and one reasonably popular theme), I keep everything in a local SVN
repository, do all the changes in that then "svn export" and upload that to
drupal.org CVS. It's more work than it should be but less painful than working
with CVS directly. I suspect I'm not the only one doing this.
bzr is interesting, and I will hopefully find the time to play with it, but it's
not mature, and I still think we'd be better of allowing some branches to be
created for collaborative work (such as the form-API). I believe it's possible
to limit access to parts of the repository with SVN, so perhaps a limited set of
people could be granted access to a specific branch, this would also work in
nicely with Adrian's DEP suggestion, a DEP would be required before the branch
I really feel we're not making proper use use of current versioning systems
ability to facilitate collaboration, it might be nice to see what we can do with
that before going for something like bzr.
adrinux (aka Adrian Simmons) <http://adrinux.perlucida.com>
e-mail <mailto:adrinux at gmail.com>
AOL/Yahoo IM: perlucida, Microsoft: adrian at perlucida.com
More information about the development