Talk:Subversion (software)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest version

Should there be a latest version section, or a mention of it somewhere? --Turnstep 15:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think we might as well just stick to major revsions. The article already contains information about the major revisions with release dates ie. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 which should be enough. Keeping track of minor version releases would add too much extra work and could easy become out of date. --User:Polymorp

Weblink addition

The "Subversion - a better CVS" link to http://www.linux.ie/articles/subversion/ is based on a pre 1.0 version so aspects such as reliablity/issues have been improved greatly since the article was written. A similar, more recently article would be a better choice if we can find one.

History

Can someone add a history section? If you speak German, maybe you can use de:Subversion (Software)#Geschichte for your reference. -- Felix Wiemann 09:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't we add a Criticism section (like Concurrent_Versions_System#Limitations)?

I think it can be split in 2: one for things that are against its philosophy (like decentralized repositories), and other for things that could fit its philosophy but are absent for one reason or another.

I would add it myself, if I wasn't still using CVS... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.125.49 (talk • contribs)

195.5.138.42 (talk · contribs) tried adding a criticism section, but I removed it because I found it quite POV. In particular, it suggested a single commercial system as an "alternative" because of scalability issues. I wouldn't mind some sort of criticism or "current issues" section. Just remember that Subversion is still quite new and undergoing constant development. Any problems or issues may soon be addressed in a later release. And try to keep it NPOV. Imroy 06:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Server down?

Is it just me or has the main site (http://subversion.tigris.org/) been down for 3-4 days! It would be nice to have a site status section or subversion latest news...?

--Cribe 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can get it fine. As for status and news, Wikipedia is not a news site. Imroy 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I feel that the bullet points alone can be expanded into entire subsections. :-) —Rob (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which points are you referring to? There's a few sections with bulleted lists. Imroy 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, completely missed that. I was referring to the CSV comparison section, as SVN's origins can be traced directly to CSV and its perceived inferior points. —Rob (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Rob means to say CVS in terms of asking for a comparison. Fraterm 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External link cleanup

Ok, I've just gone through and removed a bunch of links. One was a duplicated link to the Eclipse plugin. There were a bunch of blogs which didn't say much, and some old (2004) articles. I also removed the versioned links to the 'svnbook' - just link to the home page. Dmoz and the 'svnbook' are probably enough for most people to get started. We don't need a dozen highly specific "Howto" blog links. Imroy 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasons for removing the links you did, but could you be more civil about it next time with respect to your edit summaries. Ansell 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I have noticed that some entries have tags that specify when content on a page may be considered inaccurate or questionable in some other manner.

I would like to include a tag that notes the use of weasel words in this article. Following is the text in cosideration under the license info:

Subversion is distributed under an Apache/BSD-style license. Some have critcized the license for being incompatible with the GPL version 2, although version 3 of the GPL is expected to solve the problem

This is in clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. It is a clear example of weasel word usage ("some have criticized..."). Moreover it is an example of an implicitly dogmatic viewpoint (with regard to different viewpoints on licensing scheme prefeneces) that has no place WHATSOEVER in a neutral-stance knowledge repository such as an encyclopedia.

I would suggest removing the entire sentence following the first that merely states the actual license.

I would greatly appreciate help regarding how I can apply such a label. I hate finding examples of opinionated and biased writing within a body of text I chose to read PRECIESLY to avoid having to WADE through such comments. If I weren´t specifically choosing a source I would believe to grant me such neutrality in its information I would just as well be as well off looking for "unbiased" info around the web in blogs.

Thanks in advance for helping one more fellow contributor do his part in helping to make Wikipedia a trustworthy reference for us all.

Jose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaolmos (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

The easiest way to point out a singular concern is to use the {{Citation needed}} template after the sentence. If you see multiple instance of weasel words, then you can use the {{weasel}} template. If you think a statement is outright false, cut and paste it here with your reason, as you have done. If someone then finds a verifiable reference for the quote, they can cut and paste it back onto the main page with the relevant citation. Ansell 06:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)