Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-doc
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-doc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-doc@g.o
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Subject: Re: svn vs cvs
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:57:49 -0400
On Thursday 15 September 2005 04:28 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
> point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around.  Of
> course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain.  I'd love to see our gentoo
> tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
> course you folks are the major users of that tree.  Has this been
> considered?  This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
> feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.

although moving around in cvs is a pita, i dont see it being all that common 
in the xml subdir ... many of the other benefits that svn has over cvs 
(branching and changesets) just isnt that useful in terms of website 
management imo ...

also, although i cant comment on this directly, i imagine that all the 
infrastructure we have in place (automated QA checks, cvs->website nodes, 
etc...) would be a pain to change over too ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: svn vs cvs
-- Lars Weiler
References:
svn vs cvs
-- Grant Goodyear
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-doc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: svn vs cvs
Next by thread:
Re: svn vs cvs
Previous by date:
Re: svn vs cvs
Next by date:
Re: svn vs cvs


Updated Oct 31, 2011

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-doc mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.