Greg Stark said:
>
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> This just reinforces Tom's well-made point about maturity/stability. I
>> rejected using SVN on another project a few months ago for just this
>> sort of reason.
>
> I'm not sure what this says about maturity, you realize read-only
> access to CVS also does writes to the repository? There are patches to
> change this floating around but it's never been merged "upstream"
> because there is no "upstream" maintainer any more. I guess if you want
> mature software you can't get any more mature than using orphaned
> packages.
>
I am painfully aware of CVS's behaviour - it's given us plenty of grief
getting it right on pgfoundry, as well giving me occasional grief w.r.t.
other repositories I am responsible for.
CVS is on the way out, for plenty of very good reasons. It is past its
use-by date. I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with that. Choosing
when to switch to an alternative, and what the alternative will be, is the
issue.
For example, unless I'm wrong there is not yet a subversion equivalent of
CVSup. That's something I would personally be very reluctant to lose.
cheers
andrew