On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > Well, since my name's been mentioned... Actually, you did miss a whole
> > category of people -- the anonymous CVS users... But read on.
>
> Well, there's always anonymous svn. Restricted to that role, the learning
> curve f
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Can we put this discussion to rest?
I believe it is naturally winding down as it becomes clear that subversion
on sourceware isn't really feasible at this time.
A few closing comments:
- I would not support giving you access to the sourceware web server
and allowing you
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Well, since my name's been mentioned... Actually, you did miss a whole
category of people -- the anonymous CVS users... But read on.
Well, there's always anonymous svn. Restricted to that role, the learning
curve from cvs to svn is small indeed.
Personally, I don't mind
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:17:11PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Larry Hall wrote:
>>At 12:28 PM 8/19/2004, you wrote:
>>>Why is this bad? setup development doesn't really have any ties to the
>>>rest
>>>of cygwin development. How would this be a disadvantage?
>>
>>If the two groups of developers are
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 00:42 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> [about the possibility of converting setup to subversion]
> >
> > I'm also not keen on this for several reasons:
> > * subversion doesn't address the issues with merging & d
Alexander Gottwald wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
It seems incredibly unlikely that people in general will ever decide on
"the
best source control system". Which people in particular do you want to
wait
for?
IMO arch and svn have large pros but also large cons.
+ arch can do great
Larry Hall wrote:
At 12:28 PM 8/19/2004, you wrote:
Why is this bad? setup development doesn't really have any ties to the
rest
of cygwin development. How would this be a disadvantage?
If the two groups of developers are not mutually exclusive, it's a
disadvantage. It sets up a barrier to all th
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
> It seems incredibly unlikely that people in general will ever decide on "the
> best source control system". Which people in particular do you want to wait
> for?
IMO arch and svn have large pros but also large cons.
+ arch can do great merging
- arch
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:12:37AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
I would not support such a move.
I'd be interested to hear your reasons, so we might discuss this.
Again, I do not see any reason to fragment cygwin/cygwin-apps development
like this. Telling people that you nee
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:12:37AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>I would not support such a move.
>
>I'd be interested to hear your reasons, so we might discuss this.
Again, I do not see any reason to fragment cygwin/cygwin-apps development
like this. Telling people that you need to use svn if you
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 19 23:00, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm also not keen on this for several reasons:
* subversion doesn't address the issues with merging & distribution that
made it difficult for folk with long-running patches to stay in sync
* subversion appears to be a very fragile syste
On Aug 19 23:00, Robert Collins wrote:
> I'm also not keen on this for several reasons:
> * subversion doesn't address the issues with merging & distribution that
> made it difficult for folk with long-running patches to stay in sync
> * subversion appears to be a very fragile system (I'm working w
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 00:42 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> At some point in the medium-to-long-term future, I'd quite like to move the
> setup code from CVS to Subversion.
>
> Partly, that's because of all the little improvements subversion brings over
> cvs, but a notable concrete benefit subversi
Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 00:42 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
[about the possibility of converting setup to subversion]
I'm also not keen on this for several reasons:
* subversion doesn't address the issues with merging & distribution that
made it difficult for folk with long-running
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:42:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
At some point in the medium-to-long-term future, I'd quite like to move
the
setup code from CVS to Subversion.
Partly, that's because of all the little improvements subversion brings
over cvs, but a notable con
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:42:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>At some point in the medium-to-long-term future, I'd quite like to move the
>setup code from CVS to Subversion.
>
>Partly, that's because of all the little improvements subversion brings
>over cvs, but a notable concrete benefit subver
At some point in the medium-to-long-term future, I'd quite like to move the
setup code from CVS to Subversion.
Partly, that's because of all the little improvements subversion brings over
cvs, but a notable concrete benefit subversion would bring is the ability to
moves of files easily, without
17 matches
Mail list logo
