Judd Vinet: Nope, nobody's convinced me of a Subversion-only feature that would make the move worth it. None of CVS's shortcomings really faze us, so it's tough to think of a reason to change.
Jan de Groot: No, the only reason I would use SVN is because the stupid server interaction CVS does on every action. This is solved using SSH keys on my side, so this is not really a problem to me.
Tobias Kieslich: ArchLinux uses binary packages that are provided via pacman from ftp/ http servers. CVS is not the only application that is involved in the package changing/building/uploading process. It is part of our build system and the way we provide our package instructions to the users (via cvsup in the abs script). CVS is just controlling the PKGBUILDs and absolutely sufficient for this job. If there are plans to change that I think Judd will have his reasons and tell us about it.
Damir Perisa: It's not up to me to decide this, as i don't run the archlinux.org server but i see no advantage in svn compared to cvs worth the change.
Dale Blount: Let's let Judd answer this one.
Jason Chu: I've wanted to since I started using Subversion, but I don't expect that the other developers share my feelings. I can't find a compelling reason to change because things like cvsup won't work with subversion. The abs command would have to find a different backend.
Tobias Powalowski: let judd decide that, i have no problem with CVS or subversion.
Aurelien Foret: CVS just works and addresses our needs quite well. I don't see a good reason to change it. Hum... maybe this one: moving to Arch system could be nice because it has such a cool name ;)
8. If the popularity trend of Arch continues, do you have plans to go fully commercial and maybe form a company around it?
Judd Vinet: I've been encouraged to do so by a few people, but I'm not sure. To be honest, I'm not much of a business person, so I have trouble thinking of ways that Arch could generate revenue while still being a free product.
Jan de Groot: Linux doesn't sell that good in my country, so if it was only for my country, I wouldn't. I don't think there's really a big market for Arch, because commercial users are looking for more secure and stable distros like Redhat, SuSE or Debian. That leaves us with users like myself that don't need support. These users won't pay for archlinux, at least, I wouldn't.
Tobias Kieslich: There are no plans of which I know. Personally I'm against a direct commercialization of ArchLinux like AL-Home version 6, AL-Server version 3 1/4 etc. This also doesn't work with our rolling release system. Providing service for ArchLinux installations or products based on it is another thing, but also there are no plans.
Damir Perisa: If the growth of the community of ArchLinux speeds up, i plan to create my own distro with a very similar concept but with less people and compatibility to ArchLinux repositories. Maybe with a rewrite of pacman to support mysql. This are however plans i can face not before my studies are finished. Again: Time is the limiting factor.
My comment about commercialisation: Don't!
Dale Blount: Let's let Judd answer this one too.
Jason Chu: I've been saying since I started that I'd do this all day if someone paid me. I fear a company would be driven by pressures from the market though. It's a double edged sword.
Tobias Powalowski: I think on commercialization the problem is that people will get more demanding and expect perfect support, documentation etc. it's judd's baby and he decides in which direction Arch will go. Personally i'm against commercialization.
Aurelien Foret: I don't think Arch Linux was born to achieve this possibility. Anyway, I definitely wouldn't mind getting paid to work on it, although I'm afraid it would probably kill the fun I'm having with Arch...