Re: so, 3.x VCS

On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 16:50 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> It is not about the version number, it is about being widely available
> and used for a while. The first "mature" version of a VCS tool that
> has
> not been a part of major distributions for at _least_ a few months
> does
> not qualify, IMHO. We do not need to be on the cutting edge when it
> comes to version control, at least not right now.

1.0 is in:
debian
fedora
suse
ubuntu
netbsd
freebsd

but thats not really the point; 1.0 was a relabelling of an already
mature tool to reflect that maturity. And 0.92 (the format that the
repositories I created) has been in the major distribtions for 'a few
months'.

I can think of two reasons where being out there and available matters
to us. One is for ease of access for users of our VCS (and the above
list should help ease concerns there, though bzr will run from source
with no compilation trivially). The other is that you expect bzr to
change - in which case you will be asking that we wait months again for
that version, etc etc.

1.0 of bzr is really not bleeding edge in my assessment. I guess the
question is whether it is in the eyes of the other devs.

-Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.