On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:14:40PM +1000, Kieren Diment wrote:
> I think jrockway's original complaint was that the svn/svk model makes
> merging quite difficult and slows down progress which means that new
> features are only released slowly.
Sounds like a feature.
--
Bill Moseley
[EMAIL PROTE
Kiki wrote:
> Jonathan Rockway wrote:
>> I think it's pretty clear that Subversion is a failure for our project. We
>> use topic branches heavily, and that's just not something svn (or really
>> svk)
>> is designed for.
>>
>> I hearby propose that we switch to git. I envision each project in t
On 18/04/07, Chisel Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:21:07AM -0500, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear that Subversion is a failure for our
project. We
It's not clear to me - where's the memo? I don't recall reading anything
about the failing of svn
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:21:07AM -0500, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear that Subversion is a failure for our project. We
It's not clear to me - where's the memo? I don't recall reading anything
about the failing of svn/svk on this list - can you either elaborate or
point me
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear that Subversion is a failure for our project. We
> use topic branches heavily, and that's just not something svn (or really svk)
> is designed for.
>
> I hearby propose that we switch to git. I envision each project in trunk to
> be a separat
I think it's pretty clear that Subversion is a failure for our project. We
use topic branches heavily, and that's just not something svn (or really svk)
is designed for.
I hearby propose that we switch to git. I envision each project in trunk to
be a separate repository. That will allow us t
