On 25 August 2011 07:04, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > SNIP > ... > Great. Another bitchfest on this topic! I'm going to get a bit pissy > here because it isn't like git wasn't around when we moved to SVN, and > we came to the conclusion then that the workflow with git was no > better/worse than the one proposed by Jason Chu using SVN. > ... > SNIP > ...
I share the same sentiments bit for bit, so I am in full agreement with Dan, JGC, Allan & Ionut. I have always stressed the fact, even just very recently, to someone who was interested in Arch, that even though I use Git personally, Subversion makes the most sense for (our kind of) packaging. Aside from that, it's not about technical prowess, but about the worth of the migration work needed. What do we gain and what do we lose? How much significance do the gains have with regards to our workflow? -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
