Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base)

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:01:29AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Stijn Hoop, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I read Robert Ollivier's paper on distributed VCSs / Mercurial
> yesterday and I like the thought of using a distributed VCS.

Historically, I've felt that DVCS is a neat idea that would be really
useful in, like, .01% of cases, but was just too annoying and
complicated for the rest of the world.  But I repented late last fall,
when I was searching for a new VCS and SVN just struck too many thuds
with me.  And while I ended up in the Bazaar-NG camp instead of
Mercurial, I've started using a DVCS for most of my new stuff that I
would otherwise stick in CVS.  It could get addictive.

One big gripe I have with SVN is how the branches all end up in the
same namespace.  It's annoying, and it takes away some of the
advantages of having tree-wide revision numbering.  How bizarre is it
to say "Yeah, I just committed revision 5837 to -CURRENT; to back it
out, go to 5788."?  Huh?  Why isn't 5836 the step right before 5837?!


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.