SVN battle plan? was Re: [development] bzr battle plan

Adrian Simmons adrinux at
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'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 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 
is created.

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) <>
e-mail <mailto:adrinux at>
AOL/Yahoo IM: perlucida, Microsoft: adrian at

More information about the development mailing list