[ale] linus doesn't like CVS/SVN was: Debian?

[Brian Pitts]

Steve Brown wrote:
> Since we're on the topic of Linus, has anyone tried git yet? I saw him 
> give a presentation on it the other day ( 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737&q=git+google+tech+talk&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=3&type=search&plindex=1 
> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737&q=git+google+tech+talk&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=3&type=search&plindex=1>) 
> and it seems pretty interesting. It seems to be for larger projects, do 
> you think it would also be good for small projects or would the learning 
> curve be too steep to be worth it? Do you think CVS/SVN fans are stupid 
> and ugly now? :)

Both git and bazaar look interesting, but SVN works for what I do. Just 
because it doesn't fit the kernel development model doesn't mean it's wrong.

http://bazaar-vcs.org/
http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html

"Since Linus Torvalds' decision to stop using BitKeeper for the Linux 
kernel ? for licensing reasons, not technical reasons ? a number of 
people have suggested Subversion as a possible replacement version 
control system. Linus himself has said he doesn't want to switch to 
Subversion, most recently in a footnote at the end of 
http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/.

We, the Subversion development team, would like to explain why we agree 
that Subversion would not be the right choice for the Linux kernel.

Subversion was primarily designed as a replacement for CVS. It is a 
centralized version control system. It does not support distributed 
repositories, nor foreign branching, nor tracking of dependencies 
between changesets. Given the way Linus and the kernel team work, using 
patch swapping and decentralized development, Subversion would simply 
not be much help. While Subversion has been well-received by many open 
source projects, that doesn't mean it's right for every project.

Someday, Subversion may have the features Linus needs, but they're just 
vaporware until then, and they haven't been our immediate priorities. 
For example, the feature we added most recently (in response to user 
demand) was file locking ? not exactly something the Linux kernel team 
was clamoring for. Linus needs a version control system that supports 
his working model today, something like Monotone, which he mentioned in 
his post, or GNU Arch, or SVK (which implements distributed 
functionality on top of Subversion), all of which support at least some 
of the features that attracted Linus to BitKeeper in the first place.

One very positive result of the move away from BitKeeper will be that 
people can set up Subversion mirrors of kernel activity without worrying 
about conflicts with BitMover, Inc (see 
http://subversion.tigris.org/bitmover-svn.html#licensing for the history 
of that situation). BitMover Inc has been extremely sensitive about any 
attempts to reverse-engineer or duplicate BitKeeper functionality, and 
has done its best to prevent open source developers from implementing 
BitKeeper-like features in other version control systems. We have always 
found this a disappointing assault on the freedom of open source 
programmers, and strongly disagree with Larry McVoy's claim, quoted at 
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966, that BitMover Inc represents "as 
open-source friendly a commercial organization as you are *ever* going 
to see". We are happy that this situation will be minimized by the Linux 
kernel's move away from BitKeeper.

We wish Linus and the kernel team luck in finding a truly free version 
control system that supports their model well. That system probably 
won't be Subversion, but at least there won't be any more obstacles for 
people who want to set up Subversion mirrors or other Subversion-based 
tools for their personal Linux development.

-The Subversion Development Team"

-Brian