Re: getting on a longer release cycled

["Jonathon Jongsma" <jonathon jongsma gmail com>]

On 9/7/06, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> wrote:
> So, there's a reality that HEAD has to always be roughly working since
> lots of people are trying to work with it.
>
> Given that reality, a longer cycle essentially does nothing to make it
> easier to make large changes, because a branch is required due to
> dogfooding, not due to the short cycle.

Given this, one thing that could improve the ability to work on larger
disruptive features without necessarily needing to extend the release
cycle is a source control system that didn't make it so painful.  SVN
is only an incremental improvement to CVS on this score, but at least
it's an improvement.  Does anybody know the status of that migration?
I assume it was on hold until after 2.16 was released, but has it been
re-scheduled?
(apologies for the tangent)

--
jonner