Follow-up Comment #7, task #2974 (project savane):
> 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.
Seems to me like GNOME: everything changes before getting production ready,
it is unreliable as hell.
I would never base any real work/business on such software. Big announces,
big claims, not much in the end.
I do not see any real limitations to SVN, its fixes the one CVS had.
The whole "distributed" thing is not really a technical issue but a project
management one. Personally, I'm not a big fan of such decentralized model,
not for State organization, not for software development.
But that's indeed nothing more but an opinion.
> 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.
Sometimes some deep down code changes with no real visible difference for the
end user are necessary.
While useful, it's sometimes hard to spend lot of time while in the end it
makes no differences too users.
We are exactly in such case. It
> About the homepage: If I remember correctly, users can only use CVS for
> version control currently, correct?
It is a group type. Admins choose which version control system is to be used.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2974>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
