I don't mean to fire up an old argument again, but is there a
particular reason why moving to git rather than svn would be
preferable that you couldn't get from git otherwise? There seem to be
two distinct camps on this list, and they seem to be ignoring each
other :)
If the repository is switched to svn, people can use git or svk or
hg or whatever, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. Granted, there
are flaws and shortcomings in svnland, and I'll be the first to admit
it, but svn offers a lot more choice, and is still the de-facto
standard when it comes to open source version control (assuming you're
counting cvs out of the game).
What is the current plan? It seems to me that the long-time plan has
been a move to svn, and I'm not convinced that git (or anything else
right now for that matter) makes as much sense from a interop, user
familiarity and stability standpoint. I'm not saying I'm 100% anti-git
(though I personally prefer hg), just that right now, svn makes more
sense as a central repository.
Bill
On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail
Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
Since a split can not be done in any good way with CVS, the plan was
to switch to a better repository format (svn) before the next split.
