On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Colin Putney wrote:
>>
>> On 28-Jun-08, at 5:27 AM, Claus Kick wrote:
>>
>>> If push comes to shove, I would even say, lets ditch them all and just
>>> use SVN like the rest of the planet (if that is possible). It is hard enough
>>> to sell a image-based language with a real IDE to the C-style crowd, the
>>> package  management systems should not add their grain of salt to the soup.
>>
>> Been there, done that... <shudder/>
>>
>> Monticello was created because this turned out not to be feasible in
>> practice.
>
> Can you say something more about that? A couple of weeks ago I saw a demo at
> HPI in Potsdam where students used SVN down to the method level, and it
> seemed to me that this approach might very well work because the SVN
> granularity is the same as the in-image granularity. It may also be
> interesting that this wasn't even trying to deal with source files of any
> sort - it retained the nature of the image and simply hooked it up directly
> with SVN. From my perspective this looked like an extraordinarily
> interesting approach that I am certain to try out as soon as it is
> available.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

Are you sure that was SVN and not something more modern like git,
mercuial, darcs or the like?  I can't imagine SVN being seen as
anything but legacy by anyone but the most die-hard of fans.  I
suspect integrating with a more modern system would be easier and it
would certainly make repositories better since SVN can't even do one
of the more common actions on a repository: merging [1].

[1] Well, they do a hack using comments to simulate merging with some
of the SVN bolt-on tools, but these days there is just no reason to
use a hack when you can just use one of many properly designed
systems.