Re: CVS and its problems

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:25:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'd suggest not putting too much effort into fixing problems caused by
> CVS in the short term; quick hacks are probably good enough.  Why?
> Because subversion (subversion.tigris.org) actually looks like it's on
> schedule to come out with a stable version 1.0 before the end of 2002.
> And there was already agreement that it would be good to switch over
> once it was released.

Yeah, I spent some time looking at this yesterday, prompted by the CVs
discussions.

The only two things that bother me are:

1)  Subversion 1.0 will not have the equivalent of "cvs annotate"[*]
    due to schedule slippage (something all of us are all too familiar
    with), and

2)  It uses HTTP for its underlying transport, unless I've seriously
    misread their docs.  Which means that people behind firewalls now face
    a whole new set of problems, since simple tunneling through SSH is out.

While I'll continue to encourage GCC to replace CVS with Subversion, if
for no other reason than most of the stupid O(n) operations become O(1),
I personally wouldn't be able to do any more work on the repository,
because our HTTP proxy is truly facist.


Phil
[*] amusingly called "svn blame" in Subversion.

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams