MJ, --- MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ummm. This probably just means that he forgot to hit reply-all, a common > > mistake which I'm sure we've all made. No need to be snippy. ;) > > At some point, he put discuss-gnustep back into the to-list without > warning. Pretty rude and nothing to do with reply-all. It had everything to do with "Reply-all". In fact his subsequent email indicated that he did exactly what I thought he did. See the following quote from his last email to the list: "I had intended to post to the list and not you directly but I hit 'Reply' instead of 'Reply All' so I just sent the message again; that's hardly dirty or sneaky, but anyway." There was clearly no intention on his part to be rude. You shouldn't take it personally or interpret it as rude, so I think you should just drop it. > [...] > > * Actively developed, CVS hasn't seen many releases lately > > Did you check your claim? > > CVS's latest releases were on 3 October 2005 (feature development) > and 28 September 2005 (stable). Ah. I admit I didn't check this. > By comparison, SVN's latest release was on 25 August 2005 and > they seem to only have one series releasing at the moment. > > > * Versions directories, file meta data, etc. > > * Handles file renames without the need to remove and re-add a file to the > > repo. > > * Atomic commits. In CVS, if an error occurs during commit, it's likely > that > > some changes made it and others didn't. A bad situation. > > * Efficient handling of binary files. > > Yes, I agree these have benefits, but they are features common > to most of the modern version control systems. My point is that > SVN is not the best of the modern ones and doesn't offer that > much to gnustep (for example, how many files are moving around? > Are binary files that much of the repository and do they change > often enough to be a pain?). I'm not favoring SVN, I'm simply arguing the benefits and drawbacks of it versus CVS. I believe that we should carefully consider all of the possibilities before making a jump. SVN is only one candidate. > The biggest benefits for gnustep are likely to be through > distributed development - because developers are scattered all > over the world - and integration with the development tools. I agree with you here. > It is relatively easy to migrate out of CVS, but migrating out > of SVN seemed far less simple, last time I looked. > > > * Parseable output makes scripting easier. > > There are tools which parse CVS output, such as cvs2cl, and > the formats are fairly stable. There are fewer tools working > with SVN, as far as I can tell. That's a function of age not > ease, but there's not much to choose between most version > control systems. Well, I never said that it wasn't possible to script cvs, or parse it's output. SVN is written with scripting in mind, whereas I am not sure that CVS is. Later, GJC Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A MD Corp.) ## Maintainer of Gorm (IB Equiv.) for GNUstep. _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
