On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 12:55 -0400, Lon Hohberger wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:43 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I was just taking a look at this article and I thought, maybe this would > > be a good time to show some leadership as a project, and take the > > Subversion plunge: > > > > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/08/19/subversiontips.html > > > > Subversion is basically CVS as it should have been. It's mature now. > > The number of complaints I have noticed from users out there is roughly > > zero. Subversion _versions directories_. Etc. Etc. > > Disagree. We should use GNU arch. Here's a comparison from someone you > know: > > http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/SubVersionAndCvsComparison > http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html Here also is a presentation giving an introduction to Arch from the "bottom up", which gives you a much better idea I think of why it is the best architecture, rather than just comparing checkboxes on some list. http://web.verbum.org/tla/grokking-arch/img0.html > True. For now. Switching again in the future (if needed) will be more > painful as we attract more developers. Right - switching revision control systems is always painful. You want to make the choice once.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
