On 27/2/03 7:30 am, "Carsten Ziegeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pier,
>
> afaik we didn't voted/proposed or whatever to do the repository changes
> now. We said that we will do it sometime soon.
You have a _proposal_ in your hands... Now we can vote! :-)
> I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past,
> it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1
> because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this
> is really not the best idea.
Ehehmm... Why? You want to keep on branching? So that everytime you have to
do a checkout, and update or anything you have to waste _minutes_ in
processing old directories containing only Attic and 5 meg long files
containing N versions of basically what are two different designs?
> I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and
> I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1.
> Why are the branches not sufficient?
I would suggest you reading the Subversion introduction, it explains all the
design flaws of RCS/CVS and what Subversion is trying to do in that
regard... Branches are not a constant-time operation... Emptying directory
trees puts a heck of a lot of strain on the servers (you have to traverse it
anyhow).. It works, but it's a hack...
Sow... Subversion on the other hand... :-)
> So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert
> your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new
> layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good
> approach?
Have you tried working _exactly_ like yesterday? Did you notice any
difference? What did your CVS client say? Any problem?
Pier
