1 |
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 20:49:43 -0700 |
2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 19:14 Tue 08 Jul , Ryan Hill wrote: |
5 |
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:02:37 -0700 |
6 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > I don't think it's worth losing track of the CVS history just so |
9 |
> > > we can have something in a different place that ultimately is |
10 |
> > > hardly useful to anyone. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Maybe it's time to test the feasibility of moving to SVN again? |
13 |
> > What were the blockers last time? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The blocker was that it wasn't distributed or offline, and there's |
16 |
> not enough benefit to move to it when such better ones exist now. |
17 |
|
18 |
My fear is that deciding on another VCS to use that is so different in |
19 |
headspace than CVS will just degrade again into a holy war over who's |
20 |
favourite to pick and nothing will ever get done. If everyone agrees |
21 |
git is awesome and actually benefits our common workflow and isn't just |
22 |
the hip thing to be switching to these days, then I'm all for it. If |
23 |
we're going to argue the pros and cons endlessly and still be using CVS |
24 |
in 2010 then I'd really rather just do SVN now, which I admit would give |
25 |
relatively minor benefits, but also have minor costs as far as learning |
26 |
curve and flamemail-generation go. |
27 |
|
28 |
Whatever we eventually switch to I'm behind 100%. Just kill CVS |
29 |
already. It's eating the children. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
33 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
34 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |