Follow-up Comment #6, task #2974 (project savane):
> But actually bazaar and Arch are compatible or almost the same
> thing.
True.
> Arch is not even 4 years old software and it is already the
> time to restart from scratch something else by learning from
> its mistakes?
Well, it doesn't look so odd if you see Arch as some kind of prototype to
establish a new kind of version control, to overcome some limitations which
have been in place for the last couple of years.
> Ok, but such approach will not be an easy code change. Plenty
> of changes will have to be made. Because the way arch and svn
> support was implemented was the easy way: duplicating CVS
> fields.
... and that's exactly what I want to avoid this time :)
> Ok, I like this idea of having only one page for all sources,
> whatever they are. But we have to keep in mind what would
> happen for instance if a project using SVN for its software
> source code but CVS for its homepage sources. It would mean
> that info about SVN and infos about CVS should be printed.
> That's doable but we have to think a bit on the way to do that
> cleanly.
Sure, no doubt. However, it'll be a cleaner implementation and much more
modular afterwards. At least that's what I expect from the code change.
About the homepage: If I remember correctly, users can only use CVS for
version control currently, correct?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2974>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
