[Sussex] Linus get's bitten on the arse

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Ronan Chilvers <ronan at thelittledot.com> writes:

> I use CVS at the moment, but I've just started running into issues with
> it, particularly when branching and re-merging.  Been looking at
> subversion as a possible replacement which seems to be an relatively
> easy transition (?) but is it worth playing with tla some more?  How do
> you rate it?  I have very simple versioning requirements, but CVS  is
> starting to feel clunky.

Well... my experiences are:

0. We use CVS here - it's getting a bit long in the tooth but if you
   plan ahead it works fine.

1. I've used subversion, several times.  It's a relatively painless
   transition from CVS and provides a lot of improved functionality
   without changing the basic model.  My only gripe is that upgrading
   the versions is a massive pain in the arse, the database tends to
   get borked and need repairing, which is more hassle than you need
   on a regular basis.

2. GNU Arch is tricky to get to grips with, but beats CVS and
   Subversion hands down for branching, merging and renaming.  Being
   truly peer to peer it allows for independent development streams
   actively cross fertilising (star-merge rocks!)  and makes off line
   working on multiple branches a breeze.  It can also be set up to
   require a GPG signature for every submission (trusted source).

.. my advice, if you're actively collaborating on a large F/OSS
project then GNU Arch is a wonderful tool, but if you want an easy
life then I'd go with subversion and just be careful about upgrading
it.

> Typing this on Ubuntu, btw.  Fab.

Good stuff.

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org