On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:28:49PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:14:29PM +0100, Isaac Clerencia wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:34, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > Since subversion's popularity is rising very quickly, it would be a pity > > > if our next stable Debian release would not contain this invaluable > > > development tool, of which I believe will be replacing CVS very fast > > > (its principle of coherent changes in one coherent commit is vastly > > > superior to CVS, not to name its clear and easier to understand > > > tagging&branching metaphor).
> > I agree, I have used Subversion in the last months and it's very stable. > > Lots of people are moving from CVS to SVN and it should be included in > > Sarge. > *If* all its dependencies are ready in testing by its release date and > the maintainer acts reasonably quickly to get subversion 1.0 packages > into unstable, it seems plausible that it could be a late addition to > sarge, since it's new and high-profile. Of course, I'm biased, since I > don't want to try to maintain subversion-sarge packages in the same way > I've been maintaining subversion-woody packages. :-) > Any opinions from -release? Well, my biggest concern here is that subversion has broken its wire protocol several times over the past year. Are there indications that this state of affairs has improved? It doesn't make much sense to bother with subversion in a stable release, if our client is going to stop working with all the servers out there a third of the way through sarge's lifecycle. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpJuQsVBQbm1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
