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

[Pau Aliagas]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Cristian Gafton wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Alexander L. Belikoff wrote:
> 
> > 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. ;-)
> 
> There is going to be plenty of time to play with alternative solutions 
> once we have in place at least one. Every solution has its supporters and 
> opposition, and we're not going to get unanimity no matter what.
> 
> I happen to know CVS and I think that most people are familiar with CVS. 
> It is not perfect, it has its faults, but its faults are widely known. I 
> can take few days to put out the CVS server or I can take few weeks to 
> review other solutions that I'm not that familiar with. I'd rather have 
> the CVS out.

I'd definately go for arch. It supports signed archives, repository
integrity checks, distributed development, easy branching, no special
server needed (ftp, sftp, http and webdav would do).

It does not have performance issues and its design is sound and simple.

Pau