On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > > And, I'd like to seriously consider using Subversion rather than CVS. > > To me, it makes a lot of sense to switch to Subversion now rather > > than later. If we do start on a model where we 'branch early and > > often,' Subversion can handle the branching in a much better way > > than CVS can (and more scalable to boot). > > The subversion web page says that it can't handle repeated merges, and > still won't be able to until after 1.0. If 2.0 and 2.1 aren't going > to diverge in an awkward fashion while parallel development continues, > then this feature is a MUST.
Oh, give me a break. Like sticking with CVS will help? heh :-) CVS merges are *way* worse than SVN. Yes, neither have repeated merges, but at least SVN makes merging sane. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
