[kwlug-disc] Is SVN good enough?

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Fri Aug 14 20:41:49 EDT 2009


Paul Nijjar wrote, On 08/14/2009 4:17 PM:
> Having said that I think my next step is going to be playing with
> merging in subversion to see whether I can figure it out. It looks
> like a plurality of responses have suggested that it should be
> possible to do what I want with subversion (but feel free to keep the
> thread going).

The way I've read this thread:
- subversion should do what you want, but merging may be irritating.
- Khalid made the point that using what your code base uses will have 
advantages.
- the kernel and more and more things are using git. I expect you will 
too - eventually. Where eventually <= your lifetime. Knowledge in that 
area will not hurt you; the learning curve may ultimately be worth it.
- replace git and kernel in the above point with bazaar and the 
'buntu's is a similarly compelling arguments.
   - Khalid says it (bazaar) has native windows (GUI presumably) clients.
   - I'll add that any Windows person will more readily take to 
something that has a GUI, than not. As you point out - version control 
in and of itself is a culture change. Easier to use software will mean 
easier acceptance and compliance. (For that matter, integrated IDE vc 
even more so.)

I'm guessing any DVCS done locally only will be as effective as a 
non-DVCS, albeit perhaps with a bit more overhead. And only one 
learning curve. Which, from what you say, you will then be able to 
leverage beyond to 'backups'.

Check me on all of the above please.


Paul said:
 > I tried to set up one of my coworkers
 > with Subversion some time ago, but he really struggled with the
 > server-client communication.

Was this a problem with Subversion client/server mechanics, client + 
server machine availability, or a problem with the concept of client / 
server itself?


Speaking of backups, what you are essentially talking about with 
backups is global file versioning. i.e. Be it a script or an open 
office document, you take open office file versioning (?) to a global 
level.

	Is this effective / practical these days? Isn't that a file system 
level beastie?

Or has the state of the world not gone that far effectively, and it's 
still 'better' to use native applications on a segregated basis rather 
than a global / file system basis? i.e. Use backup software for 
backups, CVS software for code, and open office versioning for 
document revision tracking?

- off the top of my head, I would say use CVS for code (solving an 
"individual's" problem), but adding file system level versioning 
(solving an administrator's problem) seems weird.



More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list