When I started setting her up for CDN that is what I was doing once I got all the bits in place... debugging it to find out why it was not working as advertised. But, if we have a secure install that is functional (and someone else who knows better than me, is maintaining it) then we have nothing to loose and much to gain.
Lets get some more details and play with it, then we can evaluate and make a decision. I am not willing to blindly jump, as I am sure not many of you are either... but CVS has pissed me off too many times in the past, so I am ready to toss it to the rubbish bin if subversion is ready to take its place.
--jason
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 02:05 PM, James Strachan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 11:00 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes asked:Greg Stein wrote:"sorry. no more CVS. it is a bitch to maintain. switch to SVN."
Should be be planning for this, and perhaps move now whilst we are small?
Another thing to consider, but again Greg is the expert, is that this is a
huge umbrella with a lot of sub-projects. Right now there is one module.
Moving between modules in CVS isn't a whole lot of fun, even if doable. SVN
has a different model, which would make partitioning acces rights, and
moving things around a WHOLE LOT easier.
That sounds useful, then we can have committers in each area of the server rather than one massive committer pool.
This project seems almost ideal to give Subversion a whirl, considering how
the project structure interacts with key differences between CVS and
Subversion.
Agreed. I think I'm now +0.5 for SVN now (though once I've tried the eclipse plugin I'll be more happy :).
(This just means we'd best get the cvslog report for Maven updated to handle SVN too :)
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
