I understand that subversion is quite nice, but kernel developers have adopted bitkeeper (at least Linus and several of his maintainers). While you may not need all the distributed capabilities of bitkeeper now, it is sure nice to have a tool that allows for non-local repositories and change set tracking outside of the main repository (as Kevin so clearly stated). Since mainline kernel acceptance of the core services is one of the objectives here, I would certainly recommend that you consider bitkeeper for source control as well. Regards, John On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 08:43, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I was just taking a look at this article and I thought, maybe this would > be a good time to show some leadership as a project, and take the > Subversion plunge: > > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/08/19/subversiontips.html > > Subversion is basically CVS as it should have been. It's mature now. > The number of complaints I have noticed from users out there is roughly > zero. Subversion _versions directories_. Etc. Etc. > > The only negative I can think of is that some folks may not have > Subversion installed. But that is what tarballs are for. > > Our project development is not highly parallel at this point, so our > repository serves more as a place for maintainers of the individual > subprojects to post current code. So there isn't a great need for a > distributed VCS like Bitkeeper or Arch. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > > Daniel > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
