|[eclipse.org-architecture-council] [Bug 249745] Eclipse Repository Best Practices|
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=249745 Product/Component: Community / Architecture Council --- Comment #4 from David Green <dgreen99@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-06 11:58:00 -0400 --- It's interesting to see so much opinion against SVN. I've used SVN daily for many years and quite like it. Though committers are complaining about SVN slowness I have not experienced this problem even though I work on large projects. Could it be that people are judging SVN based on experiences with old versions (which were slower)? The main features of SVN that I like are: + atomic commit + instant branching and merge tracking + single version number for a commit involving multiple files + fast tree-level history, with files grouped under a single revision number + offline usage (local copy of base revision) The main problem that I see with SVN is the quality of the Eclipse plug-in clients. Some time ago I posted this article that discusses why Eclipse.org is still on CVS: http://greensopinion.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-is-eclipseorg-still-on-cvs.html Dennis Roy made an interesting comment that sheds some light on the admin side of SVN. This is like the vi versus Emacs discussion: everyone has an opinion, and most of us are quite passionate about it. Personally though I like SVN I would be happy with almost any replacement for CVS as long as it works, solves the major pain points that we're currently experiencing, and doesn't create any major new problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
Back to the top