Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:48, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:46, Gregory Casamento wrote: > >> Keeping SVN is a mistake given what has been demonstrated by GNA's >> failure. SVN gives us a single point of failure. A DVCS would >> eliminate that problem. > > I'm not sure I fully agree with this. The single point of failure exists in > any system where w have an authoritative repository. We could have an > official git-svn mirror somewhere, or even a svn mirror using svncync that > became the authoritative one when GNA was down if the only issue is being > able to get at the code when gna is down. > > David Agreed ... If you don't have multiple synchronised authoritative repositories, you don't have a true distributed system. I don't know which of the so called DVCS's really provide for this though... It's not trivial and I think most ignore the issue. _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
