Re: Subversion migration.
- From: Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>
- To: Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>
- Cc: Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>, Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>, Hacking Gnomes <gnome-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Subversion migration.
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:15:47 +0200
10 maj 2005 kl. 05.22 skrev Luis Villa:
On 5/5/05, Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com> wrote:
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:06:15PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
KDE moved to Subversion, news on Slashdot.
If we moved to Arch, I bet we would make even bigger news on
FWIW, for those not there, the big argument made by the pro-arch camp
at the boston summit was that svn was merely incremental improvement
over cvs while arch had the potential to really change how we do
things. I can't really speak to that one way or the other, not really
having used either, but that is just the background.
Let's not pull a "gnome" again and make this into endless debates
Subversion vs. arch. I'm sure both has it's merits but if I know this
community well enough this will just end up in us being stuck with
CVS for another year.
No matter on how technically cool arch is, it's a big change for
developers. Subversion is not, you can switch from Subversion to CVS
without having to learn anything new.
And let everyone who wants to use arch use it, but let's setup a
Subversion as our primary system and move over the modules we already
have to that.
Moving to either system would be a great improvement, neither is a
Just my thoughts,
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
] [Thread Prev