From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-07 03:43:58
At Monday 2005-02-07 00:35, you wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>>At Sunday 2005-02-06 04:45, you wrote:
>>It's becoming apparent that the ONLY possibilities being considered are
>>CVS (ancient history) and Subversion. Other than my mention of cvsnt and
>>one other NOBODY is looking at it.
>>not to put _too_ fine a point on it:
>>CVSNT ELIMINATES THIS PROBLEM!!
>Well, we have to look at TCO. Does CVSNT offer *other* compelling
>advantages over CVS *and* SVN? Because if it can't offer the other
>nice features of SVN, we have to weigh whether we want to switch to
>a one-trick pony or not. The impression I get from a quick glance
>is that CVSNT is just a tweaked CVS that adds a few things like
>smart merge and authentication.
cvs status -qq
I don't know what is considered "nice features"... cvsnt had a "move" for a
while but it wasn't quite right and has been removed until it's fixed
(soon, I hope since it's one of the more important things).
> But Boost doesn't exactly have
>highly sensitive projects that require fine-grained security control,
>so it seems that it should be more concerned with the types of
>common user tasks that SVN does well in comparison to CVS.
what common tasks?
personally I think we mishandle how we do things coming in to release, but
since everyone else here seems to think that jerking the testers around
makes sense I quit arguing. You can probably find an archive somewhere of
>I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise, given additional
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk