On Friday 09 February 2007 13:47, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:13 +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > > Do we need git or is Subversion fine? In any case I agree that CVS > > must die. > > Subversion is largely pointless, as far as I can tell. It has a few > _minor_ improvements over CVS but nowhere near enough to justify the > upheaval. I'd suggest that the realistic choices would be git or cvs.
Well, Subversion tries to be like CVS in terms of basic usage (checkout,
update, commit), but I think the fact that changes to the source tree as a
whole are versioned, as opposed to single files, is at least an important
improvement, although not as revolutionary as the distributed model. Moving
to Subversion should be possible in a very short time, so it's not much of an
upheaval.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
pgpzNN9GKY0R2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
