On 9 Feb 2007, at 12:47, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:13 +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>> Do we need git or is Subversion fine? In any case I agree that CVS
>> must die.
>
> Subversion is largely pointless, as far as I can tell. It has a few
> _minor_ improvements over CVS but nowhere near enough to justify the
> upheaval. I'd suggest that the realistic choices would be git or cvs.
I'd disagree. Subversion has (atomic) changesets which make it
seriously superior
to CVS. The thing that really shows this up is the way trac works where
it is *so* easy to tie a checkin (ie a changeset) to a ticket so you can
put a reference the actual code that fixed/implemented an issue. CVS
basically requires you to grovel amongst datetime specs for this.
Currently bugzilla records someone's comments, but does not really match
that to the actual change.
Not used git, but would be fairly willing to go along that path. CVS
needs consigning to the grave it so richly deserves.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
