Hi,
On 23 Sep 2004, at 12:30, Matt Parker wrote:
And the pointless mindless FUD award of the month goes to ...
You see, this is the reason why Linux itself is only being slowly accepted into the mainstream. Mindless zealotry and sarcastic attitudes.
I was simply responding to your complete failure to back up your sweeping statements with anything remotely resembling a fact or justification.
You've got to realise that the people in control are VERY conservative when it comes to their IT infrastructure - mostly due to the fact that they don't understand it. This is the way of the world unfortunately and trying to change it too quickly is not the way to go about things.
I appreciate all that (hey grandmother, come suck these eggs!). But the conservative PHBs should be delighted with how much safer SVN is in comparison to CVS. Granted, if they have CVS already there's less to justify as migrations are costly and time-consuming. If there's no source control it should be no contest.
Yes there will be a time for Subversion, but not yet. The last contract I worked on was for a very large international software company (who you will have heard of) who are only just discussing moving from Visual SourceSafe to CVS. Subversion was mentioned but was quickly dismissed because it "hadn't been around long enough" and wasn't "tried and tested".
It seems to me that the main reason that it's not time for subversion is because you don't think it is, rather than because big companies are struggling with the idea. If someone in a meeting with you dismissed SVN in favour of CVS, I would hope it would be your professional obligation to point out everything that is wrong with CVS and to explain the benefits SVN offers over it.
Have you actually tried SVN, by the way?
A.