not SVN? (was: An introduction of the new cheerleader...)

[Pete Zaitcev]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:07:56 -0500
"Alexander L. Belikoff" <abel at vallinor4.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 25 January 2004 00:28, Cristian Gafton wrote:
> >
> > - Installation of a CVS server and associated repositories as the primary
> >   interface for the developers. 
> 
> Hmm... I thought RedHat was going the way of early adoption of SVN?.. *This*  
> could be the perfect moment to start eating our own dogfood. ;-)

No, it is far from a perfect moment; just as when you move a server
somewhere is not a good moment to repartition it. One step at a time.

But even if we could, I do not see an advantage. The rpm has its own
versioning, which is quite adequate for what we do. I only check out
CVS versions when developers drag their feet introducing new rpms.

Kernel development is different, because a large number of developers
share the package. The org chart shows as many kernel developers as
all other developers combined. Fortunately, Fedora is package oriented,
which redresses the balance a little.

IIRC, Red Hat only started using CVS for everything about 9 months
ago or so. Before that, only intensely shared packages were in CVS:
kernel, anaconda. The party line was to have Apiary to handle everything.
I think Bill was the main driving force behind a conventional version
control adoption. Perhaps he can elaborate on the historical aspect
and the reasoning. I am sure there were reasons.

Personally, I think version control is overrated. Linus used patch
and diff for years. When we have 500 developers per package, perhaps
then we should consider Arch/SVN/Monotone. But this is just IMHO.
I am also familiar with ESR's objections re: "Linus is genius,
regular grunts cannot afford not to use CVS", but I'm not convinced.

-- Pete