SVN to me is a much nicer version of CVS, but still CVS nevertheless. What do people think about Mercurial (
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/)?
Nima
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bill Northcott
<address@hidden> wrote:
It makes sense to me to move to svn.
Git is another can of worms altogether. I think we would need a significantly larger community for that sort of fragmentation to make much sense.
My two pennyworth
Bill
On 27/09/2008, at 6:46 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Hmm, for encouraging development (assuming that learning the revision control system was a minor cost, which I think it is not here), then in principle it would be better to have many independent fronts of development as in git or Mercurial than a centralized system. For example, looking at the Linux kernel git repository (http://git.linux.org, there's a sense of ownership that seems good to encourage. On the other hand, if converting over to svn is easy on savannah, that's a good solid improvement.
_______________________________________________
swarm-hackers mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/swarm-hackers
--
Nima Talebiw:
http://ai.autonomy.net.au/ p: +61-4-0667-7607 m:
address@hidden