SVN battle plan? was Re: [development] bzr battle plan
bmansion at mamasam.com
Thu Nov 24 13:42:58 UTC 2005
Adrian Simmons wrote:
>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
> 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 didn't really follow the thread so excuse me if I am missing the point.
In my opinion, Drupal is better using CVS than SVN. With SVN, you get a new
revision number on every commit. That's fine with compact projects like Drupal
core. But that's not so fine if commits done to themes, modules, etc are done in
the same repository. It will make it hard for everyone to follow what's going
This is especially true since I have noticed that a few developers still don't
understand how to make grouped commits and keep on commiting 100s files one at a
time... With SVN and this kind of behavior, you get a +100 revision number on
the main repository.
So unless you create one repository per module, theme, projects, you are safer
Tel : +33 1 48 89 88 26
Creative Internet Solutions
More information about the development