Re: Re: CVS Access Method

> I also don't find there is enough added value in SVN to switch from CVS. > In many cases, SVN is worse than CVS. It won't fit what we need in PEAR > IMO. If we were to change, other solutions should also be considered and > more modern solutions like a distributed version control system should > be tested. I have tested Mercurial and it's great. I think BZR is nice > too. I heard that DARCS is excellent. SVN, just like CVS, are things > from the past. Did you ever try a distributed version control system > before ? I've used both git and darcs before; and needless to say that the convenience of distributed version control is unbeatable. So yes, I for one, would love it if we actually use one of these modern VCS: Either git, darcs or bzr. Greg: If we do go in for a distributed system; we wouldn't need that extra hardware. Distributed systems like git are _designed_ to put minimal load on the server. If you think about it; there is no real server in distributed systems ;) -- Anant