On Aug 19 23:00, Robert Collins wrote: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 * subversion appears to be a very fragile system (I'm working with quite a few projects that involve subversion, and breakage is common). * plus of course, that the rest of the project has shown no interest (at this point) in moving.
That's a fairly good summary.
I've already posted a reply addressing all three reluctances, so the above really isn't a summary of the current situation.
I also don't see a reason to move to another sccs for this project.
I proposed that the ease of moving and renaming files, and the need for setup to do this, was a good reason. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Also keep in mind that you're adding another burden to the overseers folks. That's not worth it.
If the overseers deem subversion not to be useful to a wide enough audience for it to be worth their time administering yet, then I shall ask whether they would be willing to allow me to do run a subversion service for cygwin-setup - which I could do within an ordinary user account, without special privileges. It might be interesting as a pilot program for them.
Max.
