Re: Will Martin contribute to XEmacs in the future?

Chris> OpenCM and Subversion were touted by their developers as Chris> close replacements for CVS ("only better") and also not Chris> quite ready yet. Stephen> I don't know about OpenCM, but subversion is unlikely to be better Stephen> than CVS on branching. Anything that tries to emulate CVS's file Stephen> orientation will be able to improve in areas that we historically have Stephen> not had too much trouble with (versioning directories and object Stephen> renames), but will not help much with branches (you really need Stephen> distributed repositories and history-sensitive merging to get large Stephen> benefits here). Jury is still out on whether subversion will be able Stephen> to handle history dependence or changesets well (and in any case those Stephen> are "post-1.0" features, so who knows when they will be available). I don't know what you mean by "file orientation," but Subversion does true atomic commits with global version numbering. Subversion is certainly *way* better on branches, and its branch model is completely different from CVS's. We switched to Subversion from CVS for Scheme 48 a while ago, and it's a step I often find myself being glad over. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla