converted to 1.6 markup
|No differences found!|
MichaelBanck: "Totally changed the way we think about team-maintenance"
Failed, too complex.
svn.debian.org was successful (more or less), but svn-buildpackage?
?JossMouette: we use it for GNOME packages, but it's just a convenience and we don't use the possibility to merge upstream changes in our SVN tree. For us, SVN is merely a shared filesystem. I don't know whether that many developers are able to grasp all advantages from a modern RCS. Personally, I'm not.
SimonRichter: SVN is centralized, so you have an authoritative source and need not talk to the other team members to synchronize.
?JossMouette: This is another possible reason for SVN's success: branches are directories, which are a reasonably widespread concept among Unix developers. In fact, SVN is what looks the most closely to a distributed and versioned filesystem, which is how most packaging teams use it.
DanielLeidert "Probably just useful for maintainer groups and a handful of developers (like e.g. me). Because it needs at least a running CVS-server and CVS knowledge (and users that like CVS). This limits the use and users range. But AFAIK it was and still is widely used on Alioth."