On Friday 09 February 2007 13:47, 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.
Well, Subversion tries to be like CVS in terms of basic usage (checkout,
update, commit), but I think the fact that changes to the source tree as a
whole are versioned, as opposed to single files, is at least an important
improvement, although not as revolutionary as the distributed model. Moving
to Subversion should be possible in a very short time, so it's not much of an
upheaval.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@???
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
