From: Nathan F. <fr...@gm...> - 2007-05-05 00:43:31
|
On 5/4/07, William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> wrote: > Without knowing how to evaluate the merits of the proposal in an > abstract technical way, I'm very curious how it has worked out in > practice for other projects. Presumably we'd not be the first to > switch to svn; what other similar projects have done it? How > comparable are their usage patterns to ours, and how happy are they > with the switch? Like Thiemo said, the biggest project using Subversion is probably GCC. They seem happy enough with it; it's worth noting that the developers were firmly opposed to using decentralized version control, so SVN was about the only thing that satisfied their needs. We use SVN/SVK where I work and I'm happy enough using it. The potentially annoying bits about branches don't bother me--probably because I don't use them terribly much beyond branch--work--merge. It is a bit slow to do some operations, but that might just be because we have 170k+ commits in our local tree. (SBCL has ~3500.) I use Mercurial for my personal stuff. It's lightning fast and doesn't get in my way; I find the Emacs mode particularly pleasant. If we were to switch to (not :svn), I would vote for Mercurial; Bzr is too slow (I've used it on SBCL trees and couldn't stand it) and reports from Darcs users make it sound like it's too easy to hit corner cases where it gets confused or eats memory. I have no experience with Git, but Mercurial sounds like Git without the irritating bits. -Nathan |