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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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 > Groff@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
