Re: Subversion migration.

[Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>]

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:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >     KDE moved to Subversion, news on Slashdot.
> >
> > If we moved to Arch, I bet we would make even bigger news on  
> > slashdot ;)
>
> 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.

Hi,

Let's not pull a "gnome" again and make this into endless debates  
regarding
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  
minor improvement...

Just my thoughts,
  Mikael Hallendal

--
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com