More on version management...

Ketil Malde ketil+haskell at
Thu Mar 18 10:33:30 EST 2004

Graham Klyne <gk at> writes:

> I took a look at the Subversion site [1], and see three features which
> appear to be quite compelling.

IMHO, Subversion is definitely a better, easier-to-use, CVS.

> I also think that support for an open standard protocol (WebDAV) is,
> in the longer term, a real win because it should mean greater client
> availability across different platforms.

If/when clients are updated to actually implement the protocol in a
compatible fashion.  Last I looked, there was some support in IE, but
otherwise a distinct lack of alternative implementations.

> The choice of staying close to CVS except where there's a reason not
> to will hopefully ameliorate the learning-curve concerns.

I don't think we should overplay this point.  Revision control is, for
most users, most of the time, a simple cycle of update, (conflict
resolution), change, commit.  Branching and merging of brances is
complicated with CVS/SVN-type of revision control, but I don't think
that's a compelling argument for not changing to something that makes
it easier :-) 

> Just a datum.

Just an opinion.

If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

More information about the Libraries mailing list