Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >>Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I asked, and nobody had any objections at the time. I don't think it > > is a > > big deal to use two repositories, but I'd prefer not to.
> As long as nobody is turned away because [they think] they have to use > SVN. I think that if someone feels really strongly about it, then we should allow them to use CVS, but I'd like to encourage everyone to use Subversion in commons. > >> A good way to keep this project from > >> growing (note: current size == 0) is to limit the tools. > > Now that is just FUD and you know it :-) The size is zero because > > of inactivity, not because of the tools. Until Justin installed > > SVN, people were perfectly capable of putting their projects into > > CVS. If they were waiting for SVN to get installed before coming > > to Apache Commons (such as serf), then I think the answer is that > > the size is zero *because* of the tools availability :-) > Eating one's own dogfood is a good thing, but you SVN guys need to > get a little dietary variety every once in awhile. ;) Sure--just like you httpd guys need to eat some IIS dogfood every once in a while. :-) -Fitz PS Subversion is a lot more like sushi than dogfood--it's fresh, clean, consistent, modular, goes great with sake, and--if you're a good chef--totally hackable.
