From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-12 18:33:41
Teemu Torma wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2007 23:54, Gregory Dai wrote:
>> In the recent months, I experienced a transition from using CVS to
>> using SVN with the same project that I've been working on for the
>> past few years in my company. SVN is much faster and much easier to
>> use. I'd suggest that boost make such a transition ASAP.
> We are also moving away from CVS (15 years of history), and our opinion
> is that Mercurial is far better choice. Unfortunately the IDE
> integration still lacks and Eclipse users are complaining, we are going
> to first go to SVN in coming weeks, and start using Mercurial in
> parallel and eventually leave SVN for historic interest only.
> I would recommend Mercurial, it is very nice. The distributed nature
> makes everyone first-class citizen without write access to the central
I, for one, don't want to discuss the issue of what to use again -- I'd like
to spend our time on getting the changeover done. For many reasons, we need
to get off of CVS -- the faster the better. As part of the shift, we plan to
move the hosting off of sourceforge to Indiana Univ. One advantage of using
SNV is that their admins are quite familiar with SVN and will be helping to
support us. Not to mention that SVN is becoming widespread amoung OSS
projects, etc, etc. So there may be products that are better in some way then
subversion, but my sense is the clearest and easiest path is to SVN.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk