Daniel Berlin writes: > On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:40 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > > Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > > > >I'll add others: > > > > > >I would also notice that most people don't RTFM. I spent many efforts in > > >writing the Wiki page, and the benefits of SVN are apparent if you spend > > >some time reading it and studying the thing a little. To make things > > >better, > > >something *has* to change. You can't expect SVN to be *identical* to CVS, > > >but it's very very close. > > > > > > > > Agreed, many thanks both to you and Steven. > > > > Only one request from me: before the switch takes place, can you make > > sure the instructions on the wiki are sufficiently complete and > > incorporate all the latest advices about performance and so on? I think > > this is an high priority and would even suggest delaying the switch if > > we don't have those docs ready. > > Well i guess i should aks the harsh question, which is, are these > advantages enough for you guys, or should we just not move? > > Again, there are invariably some pains associated with any switch in > workflow :)
I've been browsing gcc change sets, and I have to say it's very nice feature! I'm in favour of the change if we can get a decent ssh tunnelling solution sorted out so that "svn diff" is decently fast. Andrew.
