[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFD: Using Arch as revision control system for the website

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:16:45PM +0200, Jutta Wrage wrote:

> Some thoughts about what is used now:

> - Arch is not available for Debian Woody (still the stable release)
> - Most of the debian projects use CVS while some are moving to svn.

- all new repositories for projects of any size are being started on svn,
  arch, darcs, or anything *but* cvs
- I don't know if any developers are still using cvs just because it's
  included in woody, but all developers are *required* to have systems (or
  chroots) running unstable for purposes of package building, and this also
  extends to non-DD package maintainers, who are expected to test their
  packages before submitting them to sponsors
- if compatibility with woody *is* a concern for projects, it just goes to
  show how much CVS really sucks, since 25% of all projects (accounting for
  nearly 50% of raw disk usage) hosted on alioth are using subversion just
  to get away from the CVS suck factor in spite of the inconvenience for
  woody users
- the projects I'm personally involved in that use CVS currently for package
  maintenance are switching away from it.

> I know, that it might be difficult to learn a new revisioning system 
> and some would need help, if they are not used to CVS eg.

> But as we see Debian-Women as part of the Debian project an some are 
> already in the new maintainer process, wouldn't it be a good idea to 
> use a revisionis system, that is used in so many Debian projects and on 
> the main website, too? I cannot see, how "I am not used to cvs, it is 
> too difficult for me" can be a reason not to use it for people who like 
> to become a DD and will have to work with CVS inside the project later. 
> In this point I see using something mainstream more as a chance to 
> learn how to use CVS eg.

Hmm, it rather sounds to me like you're the one attached to a particular
version control system, not those who are choosing arch.  I know that Erinn
has been evaluating several version control systems on IRC over the past
couple of weeks and, with a fresh perspective that I've long since lost,
found them lacking.  Since she has no prior experience administering a
repository, I don't think you can fairly say that her choice was biased; and
since she *is* the person who's stepping forward to administer the repo
(which is the hard part of any repository -- committing changes has a
minimal learning curve in all of them), I think her choice should be given

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: