| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Thursday 22 January 2004 15:03, Brad House wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gentoo development community |
| 7 |
> > as a whole would probably have to switch to something other |
| 8 |
> > than CVS. In my experience from CVS, trying to merge back |
| 9 |
> > in changes from 2 different branches are nearly impossible (if |
| 10 |
> > we wanted to merge in changes from the 'unofficial' branch). |
| 11 |
> > Personally, I don't have time to learn some other system at this |
| 12 |
> > point in time, so I'd vote against this. Please correct me if |
| 13 |
> > I'm wrong on the merging front there, but I use it every day |
| 14 |
> > at work, and it's one of the things that gets to me most about |
| 15 |
> > CVS. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think that indeed subversion is superior to CVS, especially on the part |
| 18 |
> where you want to look at changesets and merging. Maybe we could test |
| 19 |
> subversion, but we might want to wait until the 1.0 version is released |
| 20 |
> for actual use (is going to be rather soon now) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Funny enough, we were talking about this over dinner. It pretty much |
| 23 |
came down to Kurt (klieber) saying that there was no way we were going |
| 24 |
to be using such an unstable product for THE main function of our entire |
| 25 |
distribution. This doesn't mean that it will not happen. It just means |
| 26 |
that subversion has a long way to go before it would be usable by |
| 27 |
Gentoo. Maybe it will be 1.0... but maybe it won't be until 3.7... who |
| 28 |
knows? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 33 |
Games Team |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Is your power animal a pengiun? |
Archives