In an earlier posting, Arch had been suggested as an alternative to
both Subversion (which itself had some earlier discussion), and the
venerable CVS. I do not have enough knowledge or experience to
participate in the ultimate decision, but one person's summary at
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/01/29/scm_overview.html?
page=last&x-showcontent=text seems typical of the views available on
the subject therefore I ask:
1. is there any disagreement that GnuMed should move, at some point
in the not-too-distant future, to something other than CVS?
2. are the practical choices limited to Subversion or Arch, or is it
felt any other options (Aegis) should be considered? How to decide -
must-have features vs. certain existing developers being unable to
use it vs. any dependency on free Free/Open Source Project Hosting
(FOSPHost) Sites
3. what timing of any change would make the most sense? it seems to
me that once the v 0.1 alpha is available, there may be increased
feedback and suggestions for improvement. Therefore, options:
- get v 0.1 packaged, and limit improvements to those required to get
it to download correctly plus / minus filling any holes in
documentation. Move to the new repository as the means to incorporate
fixes to the 0.1 version
- postpone further, in order to incorporate improvements in all of
the "must have 0.1 functions" and THEN freeze further development
until moved to the new repository?
- other
_______________________________________________
Gnumed-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel