On Monday 26 February 2007 13:50, Robert Treat wrote:
> It's worth keeping in mind that one of the primary reasons we don't have a
> different usage pattern is because CVS makes such a thing painful. Given
> how much of development is done now, I have a feeling that the community
> might well adopt a distributed development model and strongly benefit from
> it given a tool that makes it manageable, but CVS will certainly never give
> us that.
Well stated.
> > We have the opportunity to
> > wait and see what will emerge in the SCMS competition, and IMHO that's
> > what we should do. There are many more-pressing things for us to spend
> > time on right now than an SCMS conversion.
>
> 100% Agreed.
I think SVN may provide a nicer migration path to the distributed SCMS simply
because it supports the atomic changesets. At the very least, it could be a
much shorter process than what the current conversion takes (about 3.25 hours
on my laptop). Here's ([1]) another interesting bit.
[1]http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SVNMigration
wt
--
Warren Turkal (w00t)
