Re: [boost] Re: Moving from CVS to Subversion?

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
cvs ls

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 
my suggestions.

>   However,
>I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise, given additional
>information.
>
>Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
>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"