Sorry for not being clear enough. I meant using ONE source code control system is best practice - not half a dozen. Which one you choose is a matter of taste and convenience - not one of best practice. And I think convenience (current hosting) suggests using SVN. Besides I do not see any major deficiency, which would impede our work more than using several systems.
Regards Juergen Weiss Juergen Weiss | Universitaet Mainz, Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung, [EMAIL PROTECTED]| 55099 Mainz, Tel: +49(6131)39-26361, FAX: +49(6131)39-26407 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:03 AM > To: Weiss, Juergen > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: out of source builds > > > We should adopt best practice in other areas as well, namely > > the way source code control systems are used. Use one (SVN)... > > Did you listen to that video talk by Linus Torvalds about Git? Did > you follow the linux mailing list debate about the relative merits of > Bitkeeper vs other systems? Have you looked at mercurial? I would be > hard pressed to claim that there is a clear "best practice" in this > area. SVN is not considered "best practice" by all concerned since it > lacks several features important for distributed group development. > Indeed, GNU's Savannah server, which hosts Axiom, is the largest > repository of free software. It supports Arch, Git, and CVS but not > SVN. However, SVN works (mostly) and we did decide to use it. > > This is all religion the debate will never end. We use what works > and try to accommodate others. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
