| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:43:05PM +0100 or thereabouts, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think that indeed subversion is superior to CVS, especially on the part |
| 3 |
> where you want to look at changesets and merging. Maybe we could test |
| 4 |
> subversion, but we might want to wait until the 1.0 version is released |
| 5 |
> for actual use (is going to be rather soon now) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
As Chris mentioned, we were talking about this over dinner yesterday. For |
| 8 |
now, cvs is what we will be using for the main repository as it has proven |
| 9 |
to be mostly stable, if lacking in some features that we want/need. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If we want to look at other solutions (subversion, arch, etc.) that's fine |
| 12 |
-- I just want to test them on less critical repositories. Then, if/when |
| 13 |
they have proven to be stable, scalable and in line with what we need, we |
| 14 |
can think about moving gentoo-x86 over to it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
--kurt |
Archives