[Manko10]

Why don't you use something like Git oder Mercurial? I think SVN is dead end and lacks a lot of flexibility. For Git you could also use platforms like Gitorious or GitHub.

[pythonian4000]

In previous attempts at Nightingale there was a lot of consternation and fracturing of the group over this issue. AFAIK, stevo decided to go with SVN because it means we can easily pull stuff from Songbird. I know personally I would prefer something like Git, but I am not going to argue any points right now - it is more important to just use what we have to get something out initially.

[Matt-SD]

Yes, we use SVN because it makes it easier to pull stuff from Songbird.

And in my experience, the only advantage I've seen that Git has over SVN is better naming of actions & a folder in the root of the repo rather than in each folder.

[Manko10]

No, the biggest advantage over SVN is that it is a distributed versioning system.
That makes it much easier to commit more often. You just commit to your local working copy and then after some time you merge all your changes into the upstream repository. With SVN committing is always publishing and for each commit you have to wait until the changes are submitted over the Internet whereas with Git you mainly work on your local copy. That also helps you to keep track of your changes, create forks (all copys are equal, there is no fixed "major" upstream version) etc.
I think, for almost all purposes Git, Mercurial, Bazaar etc. are all superior to centralized VCS such as SVN or CVS.

By the way, there is also git-svn which let's Git and SVN interact with each other. That might help for the Songbird repository issue.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/g...t-svn.html