I have two observations:
- bdb tends to need recovery from time to time and I'm not sure of the
feasibility of filesystem-based Subversion repos, and CVS really
doesn't have this issue.
- If we put something in Subversion and keep something in CVS,
merging becomes a chore. All of the code should really be
in one or the other. The current state of the world wrt to
Zope 2.7 in CVS and 2.8/HEAD in Subversion is a real pain.
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 15:44 +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How about migrating CMF to subversion too? I'd say, 1.5 and HEAD.
> > To be honest, I don't see the point in that.
> Well it would make things homogenous with the rest of Zope and
> Zope-related projects. And you could do checkouts of Zope + CMF or Plone
> + CMF or CPS + CMF with only a few well placed svn:externals in one
> And frankly merging and cheap branches and having diff -r PREV:BASE
> makes svn much nicer to use day to day.
> The cvs2svn script is quite mature, migrating is not difficult in
> itself, and ZC has already done it for Zope.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests