Re: Public Access to Perforce?

On Monday 30 August 2004 10:15, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 10:05 AM +0100 2004-08-30, Doug Rabson quoted David O'Brien:
> >>                        For what the project uses Perforce for, SVN
> >>  would offer nothing.
> >
> >  True. That doesn't mean that subversion isn't better than CVS
> > though.
>
>  That's not the point.  The point is that subversion is not better
> than Perforce, at least for the functions for which the FreeBSD
> project uses Perforce.
>
>  The debate is not between Perforce vs. CVS or subversion vs. CVS,
> but whether subversion or Perforce is a better replacement for CVS
> for certain specific functions.  This is a debate that can only
> reasonably occur between people who actually understand both
> alternative tools to a sufficient degree.
>
>
>  I think that the point being made by David O'Brien was that there
> were a lot of people standing up and being indignant about the way
> subversion was being treated in this discussion but then saying that
> they didn't know how it compared to Perforce.  This is
> counter-productive, to say the least.

I don't think I was trying to suggest that we should use subversion to 
replace either cvs or perforce at this point. I just wanted to correct 
the slightly harsh description of how subversion compares to cvs in 
real-world usage.

Right now, the only thing which perforce has over subversion 
feature-wise is built-in support for repeated merging. Since that is 
currently what we use perforce for, subversion is not a suitable 
replacement. It could replace what we currently do with cvs but there 
isn't much point if it can't also replace perforce.