From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-02-06T13:21:31+09:00
Subject: Re: revision control, arch and subversion

Thomas Hurst wrote:

> Indeed.  I'm more interested in the underlying filesystem based RCS
> architecture than what it's implimented in though.

I just posted a rebuttle on /. about this.  Tom's comparison of Arch to 
Subversion had some fairly major errors.  I tried not to play the "SVN is 
better than Arch" game, but I wanted to correct some things Tom got wrong 
about Subversion.

One of the misconceptions is that a version control system has to be based 
on a filesystem backend.  I've been playing with Subversion for about four 
months now, and I'm a convert to the DB.  It seems like a pain, initially, 
but then you start noticing the nice things, like hot backups, storage 
efficiency, and a wealth of tools for BDB.  Subversion 2.0 (vaporware) will 
have a SQL backend, which should remove all doubt about using a DB as a 
backend.

On top of this, Subversion also runs on Windows... which Arch doesn't*.

ObRuby: Subversion comes with a Ruby binding, already.  It isn't complete, 
but it is there, in subversion/bindings/ruby.  I've started playing with 
it; I intend to write a repository mapping tool/revision browser in Ruby, 
if I can make up my mind about which GUI toolkit to use.

-- 
--- SER


* unless, of course, you have all of those GNU for DOS tools also installed.