Am 02.06.2011 22:40, schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, working
closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get
Subversion working for the ASF. We've often been their canary in the coal
mine. :-)
I'm afraid that having the luxury of full time release engineers at
StarOffice/Sun/Oracle kept me away from the
gory details. I just heard them complaining often. As a developer I
noticed unacceptable
delays when committing changes. The core of this issue may be the
childworkspace handling we had at OOo.
More precisely the re-sync process where you had to do frequently to
merge changes from the master in
your childworkspace branch. The main complain from release engineering
was the integration of said
childworkspace branches into the master took way to much time. Overall
the performance compared
to CVS we used before was worse.
I agree that svn may not be a problem if you have a series of small
patches. But usually on OOo with
medium to large features a lot of files needs to be changed and it often
takes some time until it is
mature enough to be integrated in the master. Having a local repository
to work on and share with
others is also a plus.
But starting with svn should not be a problem either, just wanted to
point out that git or mercurial
would be preferred from the majority of existing OOo contributers.
Regards,
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
