Paul Schlie wrote: > Out of curiosity, although svn certainly seems attractive, are there any > concerns observing that: > > - ironically it seems that the svn isn't itself under svn control but cvs?
svn was initially developed in cvs, but has been self-hosted since August 2001. You must have somehow found the old historical tree (unsurprisingly, at the time when svn converted to self-hosting there were no conversion scripts for the old history in CVS like there are now). >ÂÂÂHasÂsvnÂeverÂbeenÂreliedÂuponÂforÂaÂsignificantÂopenÂsourceÂproject? There's a (partial, of course) list of projects now using svn on http://subversion.tigris.org/propaganda.html - a few off the list are apache, samba, mono, and cups. > - there doesn't seem to be an analogous svn web-based viewer? Is one >ÂÂÂplannedÂtoÂbeÂavailableÂinÂtheÂtimeframeÂbeingÂconsideredÂforÂgccÂuse? viewcvs actually supports svn natively, and there are also svn-only interfaces like trac, websvn, and probably some others too. > - would the intend be to pull the entire unified tree (i.e. binutils, > etc.) >ÂÂÂunderÂsvn?ÂIfÂnot,ÂmightÂthatÂcreateÂsomeÂpotentialÂcomplications? It might fail to help clean them up, but as CVS provides no inter-file relationships at all, I don't see how it's meaningfully worse. I haven't any idea what plans are or aren't being ade. > - is the svn client sw known to be cleanly build-able, reasonably robust. >ÂÂÂandÂsecureÂonÂallÂlikelyÂsignificantÂclientÂplatforms? the client and the fsfs server backend ought to be as portable as apr is (so anyplace that apache can run). BDB has some additional requirements, but in any case a client doesn't need either backend, just the working copy stuff. > (just curious, as it wasn't obvious after some basic research?)
