[Linux-cluster] Subversion?

[Villalovos, John L]

linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 August 2004 10:48, Lon Hohberger wrote:
>> It was _designed_ to handle distributed repositories (like BK).
> 
> Well, what wind is blowing, seems to be blowing in the direction of
> Arch.  I'd be equally happy with either, and in any case,
> much happier
> than with CVS.  Does anybody else have a strong opinion?

I'd prefer to use Subversion.  It works through our proxy servers.  We
already use it for some projects we connect to.

I guess it depends on what you think the development methodology will
be.

If you think it will be this great big distributed development with tons
of merging of people's patches from all over the place then probably
something like Bitkeeper or GNU Arch.

If you are going to stick with your centralized development model then
CVS or Subversion is probably the way to go.

Plus Subversion comes with Fedora Core 2 by default.  Not sure about GNU
Arch.

The change from CVS to SVN (Subversion) is very very easy.  I am not
sure that we can say the same about going to GNU Arch.  (Note: I have
never used GNU Arch).

Here is some articles on Arch versus Subversion:
http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/undiagnosing

http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/diagnosing

http://www.reverberate.org/computers/ArchAndSVN.html

John