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 weight. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature