> > So, I suspect we have to make a list of people for whom either SF or > > Google SVN works and decide where we go from there. > > > > For me SF SVN works. I did only tiny commits and one of them failed > (I had to redo it), so I am not sure how well will scale. Getting > sources was slow, but updates are fast enough.
well, in that sense, SVN "works" for me too. a full checkout involves a checkout command followed by a minimum of 9 update commands to get the missing files and a commit requires several tries. an average checkout-change-commit cycle takes me approximately 2 hours, all of which require my attention to succeed. my notion of "works" leans more toward git's model. the whole checkout-change-commit cycle works about as fast as a local file system copy, it succeeds, and i don't have to babysit it. source code control systems should be as reliable, simple, and as fast as using a cash machine. SVN feels like trying to arrange an international bank loan for $20. :-) t _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
