Quoting Anthony Towns ([email protected]): > Why the change to subversion? Seems very gratuitous?
>From what? From arch or from the CVS? I think I have arguments for both and I guess this is other people's arguments: -working with arch seems somewhat risky at the moment. I'm not sure we're all very comfortable with these distributed RCS and this currently raises a quite high barrier to people who want to contribute. We probably need a few more people to join and I'm not sure that any of us want to spend valuable time explaining how to use arch, set up their own repository or whatever while we can expect that new contributors will be easily comfortable with svn (or cvs) In the moment we're currently having (setting up a team to get the work done), it seems that a centralized repository is more convenient for everyone to be really sure of The Right Source -keeping CVS would seem quite clumsy. The current CVS had no update since about 18 months (nearly 2 years), so does not represent all dpkg developments. There are quite few people that are happy with CVS but there are certainly more that are happy with SVN I'm personnally not a big wizard for RCS stuff, I just happen to work with nearly all that exist. Actually, the one I'm more comfortable with is certainly SVN and it seemed to me this was the case for people who began joining the mini team (except Frank who didn't really tell what he would prefer. ?..but seems happy with SVN). I think we probably do no need a "min is better than yours" RSC discussion right now...but I now this wasn't your intent, Anthony. Anyway, even if we're doing a mistake for long terms, we'll probably be able to correct it and change (again) to what seems appropriate later. Currently, what seems appropriate, imho, is having something working so that we're ready for release time which will happen quite soon, after all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
