[crossfire] SVN?

[Lalo Martins]

This is the 999th (ish) similar discussion I had in the last few months
:-P so I figured it was about time to blog a summary:
http://lalo.revisioncontrol.net/blog/lalo/#entry:24

Highlights:

And so says Tchize on 21/03/06 17:45...
> On the point of merging / branching problem, may i point
> out we never branched / merged in crossfire history?

Sure, because CVS makes it inconvenient.  And with SVN, you will still
not branch.  However, crossfire *should* be branching much more often,
and it would if it used a reasonable revision control system.

Right now what happens instead is either:

- developer writes complicated code on his machine, over the course of,
from a few days to a few weeks.  This requires constantly catching up
with cvs, and there is no revision control for this "local branch" - if
you make a mistake and kill some code you later decide you wanted after
all, you have to write it again.  Then developer commits it in a big
batch.  This happens specially to MWedel.

- developer codes incrementally, using CVS, often leaving users with the
incomplete feature.

> - command line as easy as CVS one for checkouts/commit and very similar,
> only repository location changes (enough for most devels to easily use it)

Well, CVS is even more similar :-P  Seriously, other, REAL revision
control systems also have command lines similar to CVS.  Bazaar-NG,
which is my recommendation, is quite similar, in the commands that have
a parallel in CVS at all.

> - tracking of rename / move / deletions (this is, i think what prevented
> us in the past various reorganisations of code)

That's the only one where I agree.  I just don't think it's worth the pain.

> - svn commits are done in transaction (This is an important point with
> sf because due to load on sf, the cvs connections are regulary timed
> out, leaving the CVS in an undetermined stated where not all files get
> commited)

Non sequitur... there are others, different ways to get an inconsistent
svn, and when you do, you mess up the whole repository.

> - revisions, tags and branches are easily accessible from a webbrowser.
> (in viewCVS you needed to go to each file an select a specific version
> if you wanted to explore a previous state of CVS)

Sounds cool, in practice it doesn't make a difference at all.


best,
                                               Lalo Martins
--
      So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
       then they seem improbable, and then, when we
       summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
--
personal:                              http://www.laranja.org/
technical:                    http://lalo.revisioncontrol.net/
GNU: never give up freedom                 http://www.gnu.org/