On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:52:41PM +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote: > 1 - I don't think CVS is scaring people away, and I don't > think changing version control system is going to attract more > developers.
I am only talking about a way to facilitate hacking on GNUstep for the developers we do have. I have talked to many on the IRC channel that would be interested (including myself) in having a place to hack on gnustep code without importing gnustep into a private repository and keeping in sync with the CVS repository. Yeargh, a nightmare... > 2 - Last time I looked, subversion did not keep track of merges, > so trying to do multiple merges back and forth between > branches is still a nightmare. True, subversion uses a simple filesystem based merge approach. Once again, I am advocating !CVS. Almost anything would be a considerable step over CVS. > 3 - Last time I looked, subversion was not great at operating > in a disconnected distributed way. It isn't meant to be. Svn is a centralized repository still. You can do a great deal more offline, but still no offline commits etc.. You can use svk with subversion to get this functionality I am told. Cheers, Andy -- Andrew Ruder http://www.aeruder.net _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
