On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hm. > Do we want a rock solid system to work with (hint: there are enough bugs and > omissions in the code) or do we want to turn GNUstep an experiment for > alternate VCS (which may reveal unknown bugs)? >
Yes, indeed. We don't want to turn GNUstep into an experiment for any such thing, but what I personally do want is a good solution which helps us avoid the existing problem in the future. To address Richard's concern, I think what's prudent in any case is to have two "authoritative" repos. One on whichever server we chose to go to and another which is synced with that one on a per-commit basis. This way we always have a fallback position if the first one fails. > My philosophy: use the most mature tool you can get. This is rarely the > latest one but also not the oldest one. It is often the most widely used one. > Then, you can concentrate on your own problems and don't have to fix the > tools every now and then. This makes sense to me. It rules out both fossil and SVN, however. > Nikolaus GC -- Gregory Casamento Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa (240)274-9630 (Cell) http://www.gnustep.org http://heronsperch.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
