On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I say that the sooner one can move to uni-directional flows with the
> bi-directionals out in customization and adoption layers, if anywhere, the
> better. It is difficult to conceive of any other way to get on top of the
> refactorin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:20, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the
> problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make
> a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent
Nah. OOo won'
gt;
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 00:49
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial
vs. Git
[ ... ]
Apache uses a canonical pattern best suited to uni-directional flows.
This tends to force finely grained component based desi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
>> >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
> >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
> >
> > Tangential to the responses you've already rece
Am 02.06.2011 22:40, schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you experienced with Subversion. Our inf
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
>> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
>
> Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
> problems you experienced with Sub
> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, working
closely over the y
Le 2 juin 11 à 22:26, Christian Lippka a écrit :
Hello,
Hello Christian,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion
repository as a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the
main code and it didn't work well for a project this
On 02/06/2011 21:26, Christian Lippka wrote:
Hello,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as
a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't
work well for a project this size. I do not like to start a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:26, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as a
> required resource.
>
> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code
> and it didn't
> work well for a project this size. I
Hello,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as
a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't
work well for a project this size. I do not like to start a religious
ware so from my point of
view
12 matches
Mail list logo
