I think this discussion perfectly describes current situation :-)
a) There is a large group of developers who use TW everyday, and don't want to
use CVS or SVN because ... (see mails above for details).
b) There is another group of developers who use CVS and don't want to use TW
or SVN because ..
On 7/7/05, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Clarify, please? I don't understand this comment.
> the use of libneon (is it finally stable, after 5 years?), apache2 with
> their
> own module - or alternatively ssh+svnserve (which needs full blown
> accounts
> on the machine for every de
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 18:19, Shawn Walker wrote:
> I thought you were speaking of the fact that anonymous read access to
> SVN using Apache requires write access to the repository whereas
> svnserve + fsfs does not (if I remember correctly). That's what I was
> referring to anyway...
I don't even k
On 7/7/05, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > That's not true of svn as far as the write access is concerned. At
> > least if you're using svnserve + fsfs.
> uh, how does the method with which writing to the server and stor
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> That's not true of svn as far as the write access is concerned. At
> least if you're using svnserve + fsfs.
uh, how does the method with which writing to the server and storage is
done affect the general necessity to allow writing to t
On 7/7/05, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 09:44, Darren Kenny wrote:
> > CVS and SVN were designed with globally spread out developers in mind -
> > TW wasn't. I think
> > this is what makes them stronger candidates as a code management system
> > for OpenSolaris
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 18:28, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The fact that developers all write to the main repository for their
> > branches even when nowehere near completion just doesn't make sense
> > to me. Either way you have to continuously merge the main branch
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The fact that developers all write to the main repository for their
> branches even when nowehere near completion just doesn't make sense
> to me. Either way you have to continuously merge the main branch
> with your own branch, so there's no gain to be had there.
This
Hey,
> Teamware was very much made for distributed developers; but not
> in the sense CVS works. At Sun we run many projects in many parts
> of the world in cloned workspaces; this is a model that has worked
> reasonably well for us, but some tools are used to ease the
> pain for remote developer
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 14:32, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> > - managing integration branches of some sorts, eg. Solaris (vs.
> > opensolaris)
>
> Should be easy with SVN.
even if that integration branch shouldn't be public
(ie. not even stored on an opensolaris.org server)?
> >reasonably fast, by ha
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 11:02, Patrick Mauritz wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 09:44, Darren Kenny wrote:
> > CVS and SVN were designed with globally spread out developers in mind -
> > TW wasn't. I think
> > this is what makes them stronger candidates as a code management system
> > for OpenSolaris
>On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 09:44, Darren Kenny wrote:
>> CVS and SVN were designed with globally spread out developers in mind -
>> TW wasn't. I think
>> this is what makes them stronger candidates as a code management system
>> for OpenSolaris.
Teamware was very much made for distributed develope
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 09:44, Darren Kenny wrote:
> CVS and SVN were designed with globally spread out developers in mind -
> TW wasn't. I think
> this is what makes them stronger candidates as a code management system
> for OpenSolaris.
they still require developers to either have write access to
The JDS team never used TW since it simply didn't make sense when, at the
time, all of GNOME is using CVS, it just made sense for us to use the
same internally
since some sources would be internal, and others external, which would
allow us
to simply use one code management system.
Even in the
I don't know if JDS sources have ever been under TW, or if JDS developers used
to use TW, but now decided to use CVS (which sounds strange to me :-).
Anyway, this is not a problem. We have created a TeamWare client for CVS.
This tool allows to use CVS repository as a "parent" workspace, so each
de
15 matches
Mail list logo
