Re: Subversion migration.

I agree that we need to resolve this in a timely manner, but if people
are willing to step up to the plate and do a test migration of GNOME CVS
to Arch or monotone I think we should let them do so and then have a one
month period where these repositories are available for testing.

If we after that have a consensus that Arch or monotone is the a nice
way to work we can migrate to one of those systems.

On the other hand if no-one steps up to the plate (say within a month
from today) and help out doing the test migration, then we should go
with the 'conservative' path of going to subversion. This should also be
the path chosen if no clear consensus can be found after testing Arch
and Monotone.

I think such an approach gives a fair chance to arch and monotone
enthusiasts to make enthusiasts of the rest of us too, while the time
limits makes sure we do not end with another unresolvable debate.


> 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,
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]