Since Linus Torvalds' [url=http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/decision[/url]] to stop usingBitKeeper for the Linux kernel — for licensingreasons, not technical reasons — a number of peoplehave suggested [url=http://subversion.tigris.org/Subversion[/urlas] a possible replacement version control system. Linus himself hassaid he doesn't want to switch to Subversion, most recently in afootnote at the end of [url=http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/[/url]]. We, the Subversion development team, would like to explain why weagree that Subversion would not be the right choice for the Linuxkernel. [color=DarkGreen][b] Subversion was primarily designed as a replacement for CVS. It isa centralized version control system. It does not support distributedrepositories, nor foreign branching, nor tracking of dependenciesbetween changesets. [/b] Given the way Linus and the kernel team work,using patch swapping and decentralized development, [color=Red] Subversion wouldsimply not be much help. [b][color=Red] While Subversion has been well-received by[/b][url=http://subversion.tigris.org/testimonials.htmlmany] opensource projects[/url][b],[color=Red] that doesn't mean it's right for [/b][i] every [b] project.[/b] Someday, Subversion may have the features Linus needs, but they'rejust vaporware until then, and they haven't been our immediatepriorities. For example, the feature we added most recently (inresponse to user demand) was file locking — notexactly something the Linux kernel team was clamoring for. Linusneeds a version control system that supports his working model today,something like [url=http://www.venge.net/monotone/Monotone[/url,which] he mentioned in his post, or [url=http://www.gnuarch.org/GNU] Arch[/url], or [url=http://svk.elixus.org/SVK[/url]] (which implements distributedfunctionality on top of Subversion), all of which support at leastsome of the features that attracted Linus to BitKeeper in the firstplace. One very positive result of the move away from BitKeeper will bethat people can set up Subversion mirrors of kernel activity withoutworrying about conflicts with BitMover, Inc (see [url=http://subversion.tigris.org/bitmover-svn.html#licensinghttp://subversion.tigris.org/bitmover-svn.html#licensing[/url]] for thehistory of that situation). BitMover Inc has been extremely sensitiveabout any attempts to reverse-engineer or duplicate BitKeeperfunctionality, and has done its best to prevent open source developersfrom implementing BitKeeper-like features in other version controlsystems. We have always found this a disappointing assault on thefreedom of open source programmers, and strongly disagree with LarryMcVoy's claim, quoted at [url=http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966[/url]], that BitMover Inc represents[i]"as open-source friendly a commercial organization as you are*ever* going to see" . We are happy that this situation will beminimized by the Linux kernel's move away from BitKeeper. We wish Linus and the kernel team luck in finding a truly freeversion control system that supports their model well. That systemprobably won't be Subversion, but at least there won't be any moreobstacles for people who want to set up Subversion mirrors or otherSubversion-based tools for their personal Linux development. [b]-The Subversion Development Team[/b] $Date: 2006-10-23 14:20:02 -0700 (Mon, 23 Oct 2006) $

http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html

[[i] 本帖最后由 laofo 于 2008-9-22 09:35 编辑 ]