Stephen Hahn wrote:
> The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
> and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
> out for projects that believe they require Subversion for their tools.
> The primary consolidation driving the distributed SCM c
* Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-09 18:06]:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
> > and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
> > out for projects that believe they require Subversion for their too
> * Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-09 18:06]:
>> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>> > The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
>> > and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
>> > out for projects that believe they require Subversion for th
Roland Mainz wrote:
Stephen Hahn wrote:
The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
out for projects that believe they require Subversion for their tools.
The primary consolidation driving the distr
Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >
> >> The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
> >> and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
> >> out for projects that believe they require Subversion
* Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-01 16:03]:
> Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > >
> > >> The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
> > >> and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there
On 4/28/06, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
>> The plan of record for hosting source code is to support Subversion
>> and (now) Mercurial as a per-repository choice, so there's no freeze
>> out for projects that believe they require Subversion
Holger Berger wrote:
> What does that mean for "ON" - will the main OS/Net repository on
> opensolaris.org be based on Subversion or on Mercurial ?
Mercurial.
I think this choice is very very bad. Almost no utility software
supports Mercurial which will not be very attractive to developers.
Yo
On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
other open source project also moving to Mercurial, can't remember which
one.
Xen.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net
On 5/2/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
> other open source project also moving to Mercurial, can't remember which
> one.
Xen.
Let me guess: Someone from
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:49:10PM +0200, Holger Berger wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
> >> other open source project also moving
On 5/2/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Holger Berger wrote:
>> > What does that mean for "ON" - will the main OS/Net repository on
>> > opensolaris.org be based on Subversion or on Mercurial ?
>>
>> Mercurial.
>
> I think this choice is very very bad. Almost no utility software
> s
On Tue, 2 May 2006, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:49:10PM +0200, Holger Berger wrote:
>
> > On 5/2/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty dar
On 02/05/06, Holger Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/2/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/05/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
> > other open source project also moving to Mercurial, c
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:10 +0200, Holger Berger wrote:
> Almost no utility software
> supports Mercurial which will not be very attractive to developers.
Hi, Holger -
Of course the third party tools that support Mercurial are not yet as
widespread and diverse as those around Subversion or CVS.
Holger Berger wrote:
On 5/2/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
For example
Teamware needs ws(1) and wx(1) utility software to be useful for ON
development on a large scale but you can cope without them.
Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
ot
Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does this mean that Sun will stop using TeamWare?
>
> It means that, for the development release, the ON consolidation will
> stop using TeamWare. The other consolidations of Solaris and other
> products are empowered to make independent tools cho
Joerg Schilling wrote On 05/04/06 03:39,:
> Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Does this mean that Sun will stop using TeamWare?
>>
>> It means that, for the development release, the ON consolidation will
>> stop using TeamWare. The other consolidations of Solaris and other
>> pro
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Holger Berger wrote:
Hello? I was talking about Mercurial support in other applications
such as source browsers, search engines, backup tools, ticket
generators, patch signers, splicers, bot and daemon support (for
generating RSS feeds, commit emails, firewall and proxy sup
On 5/2/06, Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, both FreeBSD and NetBSD currently use CVS for their projects and
while there are "known issues" with CVS, so far evaluations of other
tools (ie. SVN) have failed to produce compelling reasons to switch.
Almost all FreeBSD developers use th
20 matches
Mail list logo
