Talk:Subversion (software)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Server down?
Is it just me or has the main site (http://subversion.tigris.org/) been down for 3-4 days! It would be nice to have a site status section or subversion latest news...?
--Cribe 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can get it fine. As for status and news, Wikipedia is not a news site. Imroy 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latest version
Should there be a latest version section, or a mention of it somewhere? --Turnstep 15:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think we might as well just stick to major revsions. The article already contains information about the major revisions with release dates ie. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 which should be enough. Keeping track of minor version releases would add too much extra work and could easy become out of date. --User:Polymorp
[edit] Weblink addition
The "Subversion - a better CVS" link to http://www.linux.ie/articles/subversion/ is based on a pre 1.0 version so aspects such as reliablity/issues have been improved greatly since the article was written. A similar, more recently article would be a better choice if we can find one.
[edit] History
Can someone add a history section? If you speak German, maybe you can use de:Subversion (Software)#Geschichte for your reference. -- Felix Wiemann 09:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Shouldn't we add a Criticism section (like Concurrent_Versions_System#Limitations)?
I think it can be split in 2: one for things that are against its philosophy (like decentralized repositories), and other for things that could fit its philosophy but are absent for one reason or another.
I would add it myself, if I wasn't still using CVS... :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.146.125.49 (talk • contribs).
- 195.5.138.42 (talk • contribs) tried adding a criticism section, but I removed it because I found it quite POV. In particular, it suggested a single commercial system as an "alternative" because of scalability issues. I wouldn't mind some sort of criticism or "current issues" section. Just remember that Subversion is still quite new and undergoing constant development. Any problems or issues may soon be addressed in a later release. And try to keep it NPOV. Imroy 06:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion
I feel that the bullet points alone can be expanded into entire subsections. :-) —Rob (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly which points are you referring to? There's a few sections with bulleted lists. Imroy 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link cleanup
Ok, I've just gone through and removed a bunch of links. One was a duplicated link to the Eclipse plugin. There were a bunch of blogs which didn't say much, and some old (2004) articles. I also removed the versioned links to the 'svnbook' - just link to the home page. Dmoz and the 'svnbook' are probably enough for most people to get started. We don't need a dozen highly specific "Howto" blog links. Imroy 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons for removing the links you did, but could you be more civil about it next time with respect to your edit summaries. Ansell 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tags
I have noticed that some entries have tags that specify when content on a page may be considered inaccurate or questionable in some other manner.
I would like to include a tag that notes the use of weasel words in this article. Following is the text in cosideration under the license info:
Subversion is distributed under an Apache/BSD-style license. Some have critcized the license for being incompatible with the GPL version 2, although version 3 of the GPL is expected to solve the problem
This is in clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. It is a clear example of weasel word usage ("some have criticized..."). Moreover it is an example of an implicitly dogmatic viewpoint (with regard to different viewpoints on licensing scheme prefeneces) that has no place WHATSOEVER in a neutral-stance knowledge repository such as an encyclopedia.
I would suggest removing the entire sentence following the first that merely states the actual license.
I would greatly appreciate help regarding how I can apply such a label. I hate finding examples of opinionated and biased writing within a body of text I chose to read PRECIESLY to avoid having to WADE through such comments. If I weren´t specifically choosing a source I would believe to grant me such neutrality in its information I would just as well be as well off looking for "unbiased" info around the web in blogs.
Thanks in advance for helping one more fellow contributor do his part in helping to make Wikipedia a trustworthy reference for us all.
Jose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaolmos (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
- The easiest way to point out a singular concern is to use the {{Citation needed}} template after the sentence. If you see multiple instance of weasel words, then you can use the {{weasel}} template. If you think a statement is outright false, cut and paste it here with your reason, as you have done. If someone then finds a verifiable reference for the quote, they can cut and paste it back onto the main page with the relevant citation. Ansell 06:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What?
I've read this article twice and have no idea what this thing is. The intro to this article currently reads: "Subversion is an open source application for revision control. Also commonly referred to as svn or SVN, Subversion is designed specifically to be a modern replacement for CVS and shares a number of the same key developers." Could this be dumbed down a bit? The only way to decode this jargon is to click on the links to "revision control" and "CVS." "Key developers" doesn't even have a link. I flatter myself that I know what open source is already, but don't get how it applies here. I think the average reader should be able to understand the subject of an article without clicking on links - their purpose is for additional information, not basic lucidity. I don't mean to criticize, and I hope you will appreciate the perspective of a non-techie. CClio333 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Key Benefits (Marketing Speak?)
The list of "Key Benefits" contains vague words that can't be quantified. It sounds more like what might be seen on a product box rather than what should be in an encyclopedia.
For example: "Low IT infrastructure requirements (servers and bandwidth)" - compared to what? "Minimal training costs" - Need a comparison of another system's training costs. "Rich feature set" - More or less rich than similar products? And does "rich" mean there are more features, or the same number of features but with higher quality? "Robust" - Does that mean it doesn't crash often? If that's the case, what data is there to say it's anymore robust than CVS or any other versioning system?
There's a lot of other content on the page I think needs improving to provide a neutral point of view. Raisenero 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CollabNet is the Developer???
My understanding is that CollabNet were one of the original sponsors of the Subversion project, and yes they provide hosting for the project, and yes a *few* of the developers still work for CollabNet BUT:
- Most of the developers on the project (those with a commercial interest) work for Google, not CollabNet [1]
- It is one of the few truly successful "Open Source" projects, so the developers *are* the community?
Therefore should "Developer" not be contributed back to the community that actually contributes to the project? 85.210.36.63 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. "CollabNet plus community", then. svn is fairly unusual in having been planned and developed by a company as an open project from scratch, so I think it's worth keeping them noted. Chris Cunningham 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General Explanation/Description
I've come to this page knowing nothing about subversion and wanted to understand what it does in a general sense and have left knowing no more than when I came. Please include a general description section to bring noobs up to speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.58.72 (talk • contribs).
- I am in the same position! What on earth is this thing? Could someone please write an introduction that actually explains what this is about? 86.138.122.214 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think it is somehow normal that it is a bit less understandable to non-developers. In any case, the leading sentence leads directly to revision control. Are you sure your criticism doesn't apply to the latter, rather than to this article? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No source given: claim that it shares a number of key developers with CVS
"Subversion is designed specifically to be a modern replacement for CVS and shares a number of the same key developers."
Got a source for that? I see the CVS Authors list: cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/cvs/ccvs/AUTHORS?view=auto and the SVN committers list: svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/COMMITTERS and didn't find any overlap among the core. (I can't make the above http links because the spam test is inaccessible.) 86.53.37.59 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
One author in common is mentioned on www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1438 - who else? 86.53.37.59 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Costs
Costs are proportional to change size, not data size. Which size is meant here? --Abdull 08:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
