From: | Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@×××××.com> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | ||
Date: | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:02:03 | ||
Message-Id: | CALF0-+WEGj7W27iMRyJhBYmzDngqQ9Mgr9M29_1y+LFCa9YEyg@mail.gmail.com | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Arun Raghavan |
1 | On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
2 | > I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git |
3 | > Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems |
4 | > and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's |
5 | > good enough for you. |
6 | |
7 | |
8 | Perhaps it would be instructive if you could tell us one advantage of |
9 | cvs over git. |
10 | |
11 | (This is me exposing me to your terrible dev-flames, I was feeling too cold ;) |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> |
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> |