On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo > tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and > Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to > support without overloading the arch teams.
Are you kidding me? What about people that commit for multiple arches? They're now going to have to do the same commit over $x number of trees? How exactly will that not overload the arch teams? The more I hear about all of these great features of qall of these alternative SCM's, the more I think that somebody just has a hard-on for getting rid of CVS and plans on doing it, no matter the cost to efficiency and other developers. No, I'm pointing to anyone in particular. It just seems that everyone wants to blame CVS for our problems, when our problems are almost entirely cultural. Seriously, if I were forced to commit to multiple trees, or branches, or whatever, I'd simply leave the project since it would be such an enormous waste of time. I'm sure lots of others feel the same. Our version control system is supposed to be a tool to help us get our work done, not a hindrance. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
