On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 13:52, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:06:09 -0500, Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My own vote on it was going to be -1, for basically the same reason > > everyone else voted +0. There is just no reason for us to want to move > > to subversion. > > > > But, since we're apparently not being given a choice, I suggest we move > > to subversion after finalizing the 2.0 branch. > > I've got to watch my mouth here :) It's hard to make sure I'm not > pressurising or under-reporting an issue when I'm being a middleman. > > The choice is completely there. I need to reword my aim of getting > Jakarta into SVN this quarter to be the more realistic "getting all of > Jakarta to consider SVN this quarter". There are some gains on the > client-side, and some losses for tightly-focused IDE users (you lose > synchronise repository functionality in Eclipse for example).
Then I will vote -1 on any switch until the subversion clients have at least the functionality of the cvs clients. > The > Infra guys have much more in the way of gains over losses, so from > their point of view it's a much easier choice. > > That said, if the subcommunity has absolutely no interest in moving, > it's a disservice if I make it look as though you're being pushed. I > assume the time will come in a year or so when the infrastructure > group start talking about wanting to get everyone out of CVS as there > are so few left (and CVS is already in a minority), but things can > wait until then. > > I'll start to maintain a list of "Want to stay in CVS for the near > future", and the general response on this thread suggests I should put > JMeter on it. > > Hen -- Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Apache Software Foundation --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
