Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

[Lars Segerlund]

 Since this comes from bitmover.com it doesn't carry a lot of wheight :-) ...

 And I would really argue that subversion in conjunction with svk is a MUCH 
better
 technical solution, you get the central repository, and distributed repository
 with three way merge and most of the familiar commands of CVS on a new level.
 Also that way no developers will have to sustain legal threats, ( se old kernel
 mailing list, and kernel( linux) / subversion developers ).

 As I understand it, if I was working on fx. svk or subversion, I would not be 
able
 to use bitkeeper for work on groff ?

 / Regards, Lars Segerlund.


On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:43:21 -0800
address@hidden (Larry McVoy) wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote:
> > IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read 
> > <http://better-scm.berlios.de/>?
> 
> That's a religious argument, not a technical one.  Show me one example of
> someone saying that CVS or Subversion are better technical choices.
> 
> We've made an open source client available so even the religious arguments
> are moot.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Groff mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff