[Bioperl-l] First cut svn repository [was Re: SVN and ...Re: Perltidy]

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at gmx.net
Thu Jun 28 06:47:39 EDT 2007


On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:29 AM, Jason Stajich wrote:

> As I tried to ask for in the past, would someone also illustrate the
> importance of why _WE_ need to switch to SVN on a wiki page on
> Bioperl so that when someone complains/asks about this in the future
> the arguments are already laid out.  I am basically fine with it, but
> I don't honestly see a compelling reason beyond what has been
> mentioned wrt better integration in IDEs.
> http://bioperl.org/wiki/Why_SVN

I guess at the end of the day svn is just the system of choice for  
new developers. I've had people tell me who started with svn that cvs  
seems a lot harder to use. The newer projects are all on svn and for  
example to integrate Bio::Phylo into BioPerl should become a question  
of the revision control system.

At the end of the day if being on svn makes it easier for new people  
to contribute it's enough of an argument for me, whether it's  
rational or not.

IMHO, there's two advantages that svn has over cvs. First,  
directories are versioned, have properties, and generally are the  
same class of citizens as files. They can be added, renamed, and  
removed from the repository. In cvs, we all know what a hassle it is  
to rename or even retire directories. Second, svn log gives you the  
commits, i.e., the set of changes that constituted one particular  
commit (and therefore version increase). In cvs that's hard or  
impossible to reconstruct.

Bottom line - I don't think many people if any will question why we  
moved from cvs to svn ...

My $0.02 ...

	-hilmar

-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================







More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list