On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 20:49:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:

> On 19:14 Tue 08 Jul     , Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:02:37 -0700
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think it's worth losing track of the CVS history just so
> > > we can have something in a different place that ultimately is
> > > hardly useful to anyone.
> > 
> > Maybe it's time to test the feasibility of moving to SVN again?
> > What were the blockers last time?
> 
> The blocker was that it wasn't distributed or offline, and there's
> not enough benefit to move to it when such better ones exist now.

My fear is that deciding on another VCS to use that is so different in
headspace than CVS will just degrade again into a holy war over who's
favourite to pick and nothing will ever get done.  If everyone agrees
git is awesome and actually benefits our common workflow and isn't just
the hip thing to be switching to these days, then I'm all for it. If
we're going to argue the pros and cons endlessly and still be using CVS
in 2010 then I'd really rather just do SVN now, which I admit would give
relatively minor benefits, but also have minor costs as far as learning
curve and flamemail-generation go.

Whatever we eventually switch to I'm behind 100%.  Just kill CVS
already.  It's eating the children.

-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662