[lug] Re: CVS and Subversion

[Jani Averbach]

On 2006-10-20 13:21-0600, Brennen Bearnes wrote:

Disclaimer: I have a committer status for Subversion project.

> An excerpt:
> 
> "(1) SVN has many serious architectural / performance flaws.
> Programming on SVN's swig-generated perl bindings over the last 6
> months forced me to look them in the eye. They're ugly. 

They could be ugly, (I don't program with perl, so I can't say), but
there is a whole application written top of those ugly bindings.

(Decentralized version control tool, SVK
http://svk.bestpractical.com/)

> I'll list them off in some subsequent post. The upshot is that SVN
> won't scale well to the enterprise level no matter how much snake
> oil CollabNet pours on it."

If you make this kind of statements or forward them, I would like to
hear your opinion about following systems, please:

Apache Software Foundation SVN repository
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/

K Desktop Environment SVN repository
http://websvn.kde.org/

GNU Compiler Collection
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html

Mono Project
http://www.mono-project.com/SVN

I am especially interested why do you think these are not "enterprise
level" systems, and what kind of scalability issues there are
currently (there are some, for sure with projects of this magnitude.)

I also has personally installed svn to closed source/commercial
business environments and it works just fine. Of course every tool
have it's own short comings but above statement is just plain FUD.

BR, Jani

-- 
Jani Averbach