On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the policy was not to impose subversion, but to > mandate end of life for CVS. If I remember correctly, this was due to > security concerns, CVS requiring user accounts in the machine where the > repository is stored while subversion does not. Also functionality. Also > that having a lengthy transition was stressing infrastructure. I have > been looking into mail archives but have not found a pointer yet. That's also my recollection. ... > I don't think centralization has ever been part of "the Apache way". I think the cvs-svn experience, and the wiki experience, would suggest that we need to be mindful of the maintenance overhead of not centralising some practical things. But thats not the same as centralisation as a principle. And as a final point, don't take this too seriously but... the ASF and "the Apache Way" has probably been shaped more than we would like to admit by the workflow imposed by CVS. SVN is very similar, but distributed source control has very different workflow which would either conflict with or change "the way" if adopted. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
