[Gnumed-devel] repository options, decision-making and timing

[James Busser]

In an earlier posting, Arch had been suggested as an alternative to  
both Subversion (which itself had some earlier discussion), and the  
venerable CVS. I do not have enough knowledge or experience to  
participate in the ultimate decision, but one person's summary at  
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/01/29/scm_overview.html? 
page=last&x-showcontent=text seems typical of the views available on  
the subject therefore I ask:

1. is there any disagreement that GnuMed should move, at some point in  
the not-too-distant future, to something other than CVS?

2. are the practical choices limited to Subversion or Arch, or is it  
felt any other options (Aegis) should be considered? How to decide -  
must-have features vs. certain existing developers being unable to use  
it vs. any dependency on free Free/Open Source Project Hosting  
(FOSPHost) Sites

3. what timing of any change would make the most sense? it seems to me  
that once the v 0.1 alpha is available, there may be increased feedback  
and suggestions for improvement. Therefore, options:

- get v 0.1 packaged, and limit improvements to those required to get  
it to download correctly plus / minus filling any holes in  
documentation. Move to the new repository as the means to incorporate  
fixes to the 0.1 version

- postpone further, in order to incorporate improvements in all of the  
"must have 0.1 functions" and THEN freeze further development until  
moved to the new repository?

- other