Moving to SubVersion

[Mickael Marchand]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Smith a écrit :
| On Friday 08 October 2004 19:31, Tobias Koenig wrote:
|
|>So I want to ask again, when do we move the KDE repository to
|>subversion?
|
|
| I was wondering, why Subversion? I found a pretty good comparison of
some RCSs
| (including all the ones I've heard of):
|
| http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
|
| Of those, the only ones that I think seem appropriate to switch to are
| Subversion, svk and Arch. I've tried neither of them, and heard good
things
| about both. The Arch wiki has a more interesting comparison of CVS,
svn, svk
| and Arch:
|
| http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/SubVersionAndCvsComparison

don't take it badly, but, do you really think that taking a comparison
from wiki.gnuarch.org can really be objective ? ;)

anyway I think most of us (at least those who spoke tonight) prefer
subversion because it is cvs-like in the spirit. (and actually I don't
see the point of using decentralised stuff but that's just my opinion ...)
Moreover, if i understood correctly (did I ?) you can use svk on top of
subversion so people wanting a decentralised repos can use it too while
others use the main repository directly (though it may not be much
reliable yet according to the FAQ of svk but maybe we could help making
it better)

Cheers,
Mik

|
| Based on these comparisons, I'd prefer to use Arch than Subversion or
svk, and
| would prefer svk to Subversion.
|
| I intend to play with both Arch and svn in the near future, to get a
better
| idea of their differences. Before KDE's CVS is changed over to something
| else, I'd suggest at least a few other people do the same.
|
| Thanks,
| Richard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBZx5gyOYzc4nQ8j0RArd2AJ4qjNmOQKUtDftO7V1b0E5bFxxLoACfUGqV
et6HwiFjYnT/igzETKhuTxM=
=d+Pe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----