From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-10 20:53:51
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> We have a well defined structure. It may not be optimal - but
>> that's another issue. As far as I'm concerned, SVN vs CVS
>> totally separate from Beman's proposal. Given all the
>> opportunities/issues raised by a move to SVN, maybe
>> the change to SVN should be postponed until Beman's
>> proposal is impemented.
> No ! Since, as you say, the SVN <-> CVS change is orthogonal
> to the rest, and since changing structure is *much* more easy
> in SVN, there is no reason not to start with the SVN move.
regardless of whether its easier or not with SVN or CVS or whatever,
I'm arguing that the structure shouldn't be changed until
the testing is fixed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk