| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> said: |
| 3 |
>> Except some VCS are more usable with different repo layouts; how do |
| 4 |
>> you intend to reconcile these differences? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> we dont. having a decent VCS now is infinitly more valuable than spending |
| 7 |
> 2 years discussing the perfect repo layout. also, switching to a |
| 8 |
> decentralised VCS may/will spawn modes of operation that we dont even |
| 9 |
> know about yet, possibly making the so thoughtful established repo layout |
| 10 |
> changes obsolete faster than the time it took to come up with them. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> i am not opposed to the idea of layout changes; its just not my personal |
| 13 |
> itch (right now). and quite frankly - i dont see anybody else here, whose |
| 14 |
> itch it is... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It is mine ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our repo layout |
| 20 |
> is not! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I |
| 23 |
think is better). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> absolute worst case is, that we switch again. though that is a risk we |
| 27 |
> still encounter if we do repo layout changes now. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
True. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> best regards |
| 33 |
> Thilo |
| 34 |
> |
Archives