[svk-devel] Re: Mercurial (and NOT svk) chosen as Distributed SCM for OpenSolaris... Do we "Know" the reasons for rejection?

[Pazu]

John Peacock wrote:

> It also seems like they were biased towards something that acted much 
> more like TeamWare (the former internal package).  I read through some 
> of the SCM list (focusing on the mentions of SVK) and it seemed like 
> they were not happy with the speed of SVK (though they didn't bother to 
> learn that there are ways to improve that performance) and the number of 
> dependencies involved.

Under this light their decision actually makes some sense. If I was 
choosing a new VCS for my organization, I'd want the solution to be as 
painless as possible, and using something similar to what we had before 
is a good choice.

We also have to admit that svk performance isn't stellar right now, and 
the number of dependencies involved is problem, if you're building from 
source. That being said, I still think svk benefits outweight it's 
problems. Too bad they couldn't see that.

-- Marcus