On 12/31/12 7:32 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Alfred Perlstein <bri...@mu.org> wrote:
There are arguments on both sides; some (perhaps you) feel SVN has/
provides more options, others (maybe myself) feel the same can be
accomplished with CVS, and that migration only causes more initial
(and unnecessary) overhead. I'll leave it at that. :)
Chris,
I think you've gotten to your NYE jubilations a bit early.
Sure the same can be accomplished by CVS, the same way a mission to the moon
could be accomplished with enough black powder and a sailing ship.
It just won't be a pleasant trip.
Go finish whatever you're drinking and have a great 2013.
When you wake up, go crack a book on SVN and you'll only be living in 2007.
-Alfred
Anyone who has had the "pleasure" of being an admin charge of a CVS
repository will not want to go back to it after discovering what SVN
and GIT have to offer.
Just my 2c
Agreed.
Several of our developers used to put in quite a bit of time into CVS
"repo copies" and other such tasks. I do not know the weight of such
things these days, but I haven't seen much traffic about them. I'm
hoping the SVN reduced them quite a bit. We had some people who would
be much more beneficial kernel work, instead doing repository surgery on
a regular basis for people. Glad that is over.
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
