Switching from CVS to Subversion: test svn repo available

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:16:57PM -0400, David Hampton wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 13:42 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> 
> > If you'd like some more detailed info, I'd recommend:
> > [5] for the heart of the issue in concise terms
> > [6] for an good overview of the main SCM debate
> > [8] for an overview of SCM softwares available
> > [1, 2, 7] for some informative Arch vs. SVN debate
> > [3] for a practical perspective on SCM usage
> > 
> > [1] http://www.reverberate.org/computers/ArchAndSVN.html
> > [2] http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/undiagnosing
> > [3] http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1028
> > [4] http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#changesets
> > [5] http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/derivatives.html
> > [6] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html
> > [7] http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/diagnosing 
> > [8] http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Apps/scm.html 
> 
> I've read through a bunch of these postings and I remain unconvinced
> that one is better than the other.  I agree with [5] that this is solely
> a discussion of the format in which changes are maintained; that there
> is no difference in content.  I can where there might be some advantage
> to the changeset approach when there is a large amount of patching
> between branches, but that hasn't ever been the case in GnuCash.  

Well, I think *all* development should be on branches.

> The GnuCash tree is very sparse, and most branches are terminal
> release branches.

This is true, but that's because a) there wasn't much use of branches
because they were such a pain, b) some development was done
out-of-tree with no SCM and then commited.  Everytime b) happens,
that's essentially a branch you don't see.

> Even if the tree wasn't sparse, I don't foresee the need to
> cross patch branches like there is in kernel development.

Well, if all dev work was done on branches, there'd be a lot of branch
sync'ing to the released branches.

-chris