On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
> Commentary is encouraged. We can start to look at specific
> SCM-dependent tools next week, unless we are more distant from
> consensus that I believe...
>
> Enjoy the weekend; my thanks to all.
... snip
> Therefore, we have decided to
On 4/8/06, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
> >
> > Commentary is encouraged. We can start to look at specific
> > SCM-dependent tools next week, unless we are more distant from
> > consensus that I believe...
> >
> > Enjoy the weekend; my th
Holger Berger wrote:
May I ask whether this decision is wise? What is the background to
prefer Mercurial over bit keeper, git or subversion?
Please read the full body of the evaluations which explain exactly
why this decision was made (they were posted to tools-discuss, not
the full opensolaris
* Holger Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07 18:12]:
> On 4/8/06, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Commentary is encouraged. We can start to look at specific
> > > SCM-dependent tools next week, unless we are more distant from
On 4/7/06, Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the upcoming submissions for the freeware consolidation will be
> to ensure that Subversion and Mercurial are available in one or more
> of the standard installation scenarios.
Cool! -- justin
__
> - Availability: Neither Suse Linux or any BSD variants (FreeBSD,
> OpenBSD, NetBSD) provide Mercurial packages as part of their
> distributions. Choosing a niece product may not be wise. git,
> Subversion and bitkeeper are not only more popular - they are also
> much more widespread and better te
>> - Availability: Neither Suse Linux or any BSD variants (FreeBSD,
>> OpenBSD, NetBSD) provide Mercurial packages as part of their
>> distributions. Choosing a niece product may not be wise. git,
>> Subversion and bitkeeper are not only more popular - they are also
>> much more widespread and bet
