On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 05:16:25PM +0200, Niels Nes wrote:
MonetDB developers
Seems switching to another 'sourceforge' like service isn't an option. So we should try to get the best out of sourceforge. Reading their remarks and some of the subversion documentation, it seems a good idea to move to subversion. Does anybody have objections ?
Though I will not actually object, I am a bit sceptical about this.
-- Do we actually *know* SVN (on SourceForge) is any better than CVS?
"Reading their remarks and some documentation, it seems a good idea to move to subversion" does not actually convince me. CVS per se is not unreliable at all. Rather, we have been disappointed by the services provided by *SourceForge* in the recent past. That would still be the case if we switched to SVN.
-- Do we really need a replacement for SourceForge CVS?
I guess the current urge to switch to something else is mainly due to the recent outage of SourceForge CVS. From my side, this is the only *major* CVS outage of SourceForge I can remember. For sure there have been issues every now and then, but that did not keep us from making significant progress in our development. And from what we heard from Fabian, SourceForge's services aren't that bad, compared to others.
-- What would be the consequences when switching to SVN?
Personally, I don't have any experiences with SVN, so I'd have to learn something new. (In fact, I'd even have to install the software first, but both is not an actual problem :-).) What wonders me, though, is what impact the shift would have for, e.g., the TestWeb, Stefan's automated branch propagation scripts, etc. If it takes work on that side, my opinion is we'd better stay with CVS.
In short: I'm sceptical about switching to SVN, just because we have been annoyed by the recent CVS outage on SourceForge.
Jens