florentin_ at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 25 00:16:56 PST 2005
I was looking into arch because subversion has a lot of dependencies but
never worked with any of them. Why is it arch difficult to use ?
Andrew Sweger wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Rizvi, Ali wrote:
>>This is the first time I have heard about Subversion but I am excited
>>to know more, I have already started reading the book and have
>>installed it to experiment with.
>>It seems promising but when I asked one of my Perl Guru friends here
>>is what he has to say:
>>I was under the impression that bitkeeper was better:
>>but I think either of three works fine. Versioning is over-rated and
>>should be transparent.
> BitKeeper may very well be better than Subversion, for certain criteria.
> However, Subversion does not attempt to do all the things that BK
> attempts. Subversion makes a fine foundation for building those more
> advanced workflow systems, but requires someone else to build those tools
> (some of them are in development already). It looks like some of the
> information in that comparison page may be out of date too. I didn't look
> closely, but I'm pretty sure (for example) Subversion is built around
> all-or-nothing (atomic) commit transactions.
> Also, BK is no free (libre) like Subversion. So, coming from an extensive
> CVS background, Subversion is a good step. For large, organized groups,
> using Subversion would involve building substantial policy and procedures
> to keep things working smoothly. But for ad hoc groups and open source
> development, this is a huge step up from CVS (versioned renames!).
More information about the spug-list