On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:13:52PM +0200, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Piotr Budny wrote:
> > A w CVS nie będzie też miliona katalogów?
> >
> > Może lepsza będzie struktura
> > /katalog-per-pakiet/...
>
> bl
>
> > albo /katalog-per-pakiet/...?
>
> GDYBY u nas był _r
Łukasz Jernaś wrote:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 14 maja 2007, Patryk Zawadzki napisał:
>
>
>> Dla mnie implementacja gałęzi na zwykłych katalogach jest jedną z
>> ogromnych przewag SVN nad CVS. Przy pracy na kilku gałęziach (a jako
>> programista dość często muszę forkować kod pod implementację jedneg
Bartosz Taudul wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 08:54:57PM +0200, Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote:
>>> Any thoughts? Comments?
>> Yup. It was discussed to death. It doesn't fit to PLD.
> It does fit PLD. (anyone else have quality arguments?)
The requirement is that there must be a way to easily have the o
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Piotr Budny wrote:
> A w CVS nie będzie też miliona katalogów?
>
> Może lepsza będzie struktura
> /katalog-per-pakiet/...
bl
> albo /katalog-per-pakiet/...?
GDYBY u nas był _rozsądny_ podział na grupy to takie coś możnaby próbować
zrobić.
Z drugiej strony - przy
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 maja 2007, Patryk Zawadzki napisał:
> Dla mnie implementacja gałęzi na zwykłych katalogach jest jedną z
> ogromnych przewag SVN nad CVS. Przy pracy na kilku gałęziach (a jako
> programista dość często muszę forkować kod pod implementację jednego
> ficzera, a potem mergować ta
On 5/14/07, Paweł Sikora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 of May 2007 00:30:03 Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > A w CVS nie będzie też miliona katalogów?
> > Tylko ~12000, pamiętaj że SVN robi katalogi dla wszystkich agów/branchy
> w svn-ie nie trzeba nam robic tagow za pomoca svn-cp tak jak ro
On Monday 14 of May 2007 00:30:03 Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > ~milion katalogów, sprawdziłem też GIT na samym SPECS i wyszedł
> >
> > A w CVS nie będzie też miliona katalogów?
>
> Tylko ~12000, pamiętaj że SVN robi katalogi dla wszystkich agów/branchy
w svn-ie nie trzeba nam robic tagow za pomoca
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 08:54:57PM +0200, Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote:
> > Any thoughts? Comments?
> Yup. It was discussed to death. It doesn't fit to PLD.
It does fit PLD. (anyone else have quality arguments?)
> And even more important is that qboosh doesn't like it. If he won't
> commit than we're
On 5/13/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13-05-2007 20:20]:
> > We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
> All version control systems suck. CVS just sucks least for this kind of
> repository.
Why?
> > others. Bu
On 5/13/07, Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
> others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
> the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
> because any other CMS won't han
Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> Any thoughts? Comments?
Yup. It was discussed to death. It doesn't fit to PLD.
And even more important is that qboosh doesn't like it. If he won't
commit than we're all doomed so better don't mess with this stuff. (or
invent something clever)
Btw. I think we could get t
Dnia niedziela, 13 maja 2007, Jan Rekorajski napisał:
> EN:
>
[...]
> would SVN repo look like - a ~milion directories, and GIT just doesn't
Wouldn't CVS have milion dirs too?
Maybe the
/dir-per-package/...?
or /dir-per-package/...?
should be considered?
[...]
> Any thoughts? Comments?
Is th
EN:
We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
because any other CMS won't handle such layout (you can imagine how
would SVN repo look
13 matches
Mail list logo
