| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo |
| 3 |
> tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and |
| 4 |
> Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to |
| 5 |
> support without overloading the arch teams. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Are you kidding me? What about people that commit for multiple arches? |
| 8 |
They're now going to have to do the same commit over $x number of trees? |
| 9 |
How exactly will that not overload the arch teams? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The more I hear about all of these great features of qall of these |
| 12 |
alternative SCM's, the more I think that somebody just has a hard-on for |
| 13 |
getting rid of CVS and plans on doing it, no matter the cost to |
| 14 |
efficiency and other developers. No, I'm pointing to anyone in |
| 15 |
particular. It just seems that everyone wants to blame CVS for our |
| 16 |
problems, when our problems are almost entirely cultural. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Seriously, if I were forced to commit to multiple trees, or branches, or |
| 19 |
whatever, I'd simply leave the project since it would be such an |
| 20 |
enormous waste of time. I'm sure lots of others feel the same. Our |
| 21 |
version control system is supposed to be a tool to help us get our work |
| 22 |
done, not a hindrance. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 26 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 27 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 28 |
Games - Developer |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives