As Paul Klapperich wrote:
On the other hand, Subversion does have a long known random commit
corruption bug, which makes an old commit and a few after it
unusable.
Interesting, thanks for the warning. I've never heard about (or
experienced) that myself.
That might be
reason enough to stay
Subversion. Just because it works pretty well, is widely used and modern, and
I'm used it. I wouldn't be opposed to Git, either.
We use Subversion at Yahoo! and I've never heard of a commit being corrupted.
--
Rick
On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:48 , Joerg Wunsch wrote:
Now that AVaRICE 2.11 has
I have used mercurial before and find it quite smooth and logical. I would
stay away from centralized SCMs as much as possible.
//Seemanta
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Paul Klapperich
paul.klapper...@packetdigital.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rick Mann
-Original Message-
From: Seemanta Dutta [mailto:seema...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:55 PM
To: AVaRICE list
Subject: Re: [AVaRICE-user] Change of VCS
I have used mercurial before and find it quite smooth and logical. I would
stay away from centralized SCMs as
