| 1 |
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 3:03 pm, Aaron Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:33:46 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> > | Finally, just don't use svn if you feel that uncomfortable with it. No |
| 7 |
> > | one said that cvs will go away. I'm tired of reading your 'svn is |
| 8 |
> > | hard to merge because it *is* hard to merge' posts :( |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Eh? Dude, I'm one of the people that's been asking for SVN from the |
| 11 |
> > beginning. SVN is considerably easier to merge than CVS -- however, it's |
| 12 |
> > a pain in the ass if you're using multiple projects per repo because |
| 13 |
> > then you *have* to give it full paths. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Really, I think you should reread the entire thread if you think I'm |
| 16 |
> > against SVN. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yeah actually the glep wouldnt exist at all w/o Ciaran pawning it off on me |
| 19 |
> :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I take it back. Really I just wanted to stop that 'I like it better that way' |
| 22 |
discussion. But yet, I'm responding again. However, I take it back, sorry |
| 23 |
though. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
| 27 |
16:45:13 up 21 days, 5:51, 0 users, load average: 0.42, 0.31, 0.26 |
Archives