Conclusion about CVS to Subversion et al. discussion

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:38:06PM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> I think it's about time to conclude this version control discussion for now, 
> make a decision based on the current consensus, postpone further discussion 
> into next year, and continue coding on the gnome2 port for now.

Agreed.

> 
> >From what we can see in the -devel and -patches discussion, everyone agrees 
> that we should make a transition from CVS to a more modern version control 
> system. Also, everyone would agree that SVN is in fact such a more modern 
> version control system. Josh's test setup for the gnucash repository on SVN 
> works already quite nice and gives a good impression of the benefits from SVN 
> (like, "svn diff" for the full commit of one person at one time, or in other 
> words: the full changeset can be viewed easily).
> 
> There is no general agreement on whether a dedicated SCM like git would offer 
> enough additional benefit so that a transition of the gnucash repository to 
> such an SCM would be a good decision at this point in time. (For example, I 
> tend to agree that there is enough additional benefit in such a move, but as 
> I said, there is no general agreement.)

s/dedicated/distributed/?

> 
> I would therefore propose that we decide on the transition to Subversion 
> *now*, and that this transition should happen in the next 1-2 weeks.

If we're moving to svn, let's do it *soon*.  I think Josh said "in a
couple weeks" at the *beginning* of this thread.

> 
> @David Hampton: Would you suggest to do the gnome2-branch merging to HEAD 
> still in CVS, and make the transition to SVN after that? Or would you suggest 
> that we can make the SVN-transition with the current repository, so that the 
> gnome2-branch merging to HEAD will be done in SVN? If the former, then I 
> would kindly ask whether the gnome2->HEAD merge could be done ASAP; if the 
> latter, I would suggest that the transition to SVN should be done in the next 
> 1-2 weeks.

At the risk of delay, I would recommend do the merge before the move.

> 
> Additionally, I would propose that we stop the discussion of the SCM issue now 
> and reconsider this again at a later point in time (e.g., in six months from 
> now), when we can already see whether some of the source control issues are 
> already resolved by using SVN instead of CVS. 

Good proposal.

-chris