[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[eclipse.org-committers] SVN vs. CVS
- From: Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:58:16 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Newsgroups: eclipse.foundation
- User-agent: Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Windows/20080914)
I tried to stay out of this discussion for a while but I can't. It
turned into one of those never ending threads you find all over on this
funny thing called Internet. No matter how many arguments you find for
or against one technology there is always an equal number of those for
or against the other.
It's absolutely fine to roam about the past, how great it was and how
simple. But it's also fine to move one while looking at the past,
acknowledge what works and fix what doesn't.
I was surprised about the result of a few simple Bugzilla searches.
Folks, the result made me sad. If only half of the activity in this
thread was invested into Bugzilla reports or comments we would have
lesser to complain about.
The Eclipse CVS tooling wasn't perfect in the beginning. It evolved. The
SVN tooling is not there yet. But it simply can't reach the same level
if it doesn't get the same community support.
Anyway, I'm happy that the Eclipse Foundation provides both options for
projects. I'm not happy that the administrative overhead is not trivial.
We need to fix that - either in SVN or by sharing some of the work
between the involved parties (committers and administrators).
PS: Note, this post goes to eclipse.foundation as well which should be a
more appropriate forum for this discussion. Please reply using one of
the following links (whatever works for you).