Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 00:42 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
[about the possibility of converting setup to subversion]
I'm also not keen on this for several reasons:
* subversion doesn't address the issues with merging & distribution that
made it difficult for folk with long-running patches to stay in sync
Not directly, no. But branching and merging are somewhat nicer than in cvs,
so we would be able to give folk with long-running patches personal
branches. This addresses the "issues of merging". I don't understand what
you mean by "issues of distribution".
* subversion appears to be a very fragile system (I'm working with quite
a few projects that involve subversion, and breakage is common).
Being rather enthused by subversion, I'd be happy to discuss this common
breakage further either privately or on [EMAIL PROTECTED], to try
to diagnose the cause and dispel this appearance.
* plus of course, that the rest of the project has shown no interest (at
this point) in moving.
Do you mean the rest of the cygwin project?
It doesn't have such an immediate need for major moving and renaming of
source files, which is the principal immediate gain, IMO.
Also, to be honest, I don't think subversion is capable of adequately
replicating the complex setup of symlinks and modules that is the src
repository (at it's present state of development, anyway).
Or do you mean the rest of the cygwin setup project?
That would be me, you, Igor, Gary and Pierre? Anyone I've missed? Let's give
them time to tell us their opinions.
Max.
