Re: Moving to an alternate VCS

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 17:34 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Daniel Berlin dixit:
> 
> [ cvs blame ]
> >Other than that, there were no real significant problems.
> 
> There were some, but I don't have the URI handy to look again.
> I do remember, though, an svn developer stating it's not good
> for such large projects. (OTOH, with less than 28'000 RCS files
> there's a chance that these problems won't hit you.)

I have a very hard time believing any of the svn developers would say
that.
I've been a member of the svn-dev mailing list for quite a while now,
and remember messages about the mono migration, and honestly don't
remember anything about saying it wasn't meant for large numbers of
files.

> >> Also, CVS is proven, well-hung, interoperable and still a standard.
> >
> >And slow, and not built or able to handle our current development model
> >well.
> 
> Just tag in smaller chunks ;-)
> 
> Seriously, other projects still work well with CVS, despite
> its problems. You just get used to them.

Again, if we don't have to live with it, why live with it?

The answer here is simple.
I'll convert the repo, put it somewhere, and people will try it out.
If it works better, we'll use it
If it doesn't, we won't.

I don't think we need to get into theory about this :)