also sprach Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> [2005.08.19.2140 +0200]:
> The Berkeley DB storage backend was an enormously stupid thing, but
> that's been fixed (phew). My main gripe with Subversion now is that
> if I'm not mistaken (which I could very well be, since I've switched
> to baz and only use SVN for $HOME/bin/) you can't really do the
> equivalent of "cvs update -j foo-branch-last-merge -j foo-branch"
> without having to read commit logs, extract revision numbers from
> there, and use these revision numbers in the command line.
This is the most unpleasant part about participating in the Plone
and Archetypes projects: merging a branch and properly interacting
with branches takes unnecessarily long.
Plus, Subversion doesn't really help you *at* *all*. Pages like[0]
should not have to exist, and you should not have to refer to it
*every* time you merge a branch into mainline.
0. http://plone.org/development/info/merging
I want to make my intention clearer: *I* oppose to the ITP for
reasons that *I* would really like CVS to go away. *I* also live in
somewhat of an idealist world. So my emails were supposed to be
a statement of my opinion, and as dato already said: if others
disagree, and if someone is there to put the work into packaging
OpenCVS, then by all means. If I had a reason for posting, then it
was so that we had this thread and reached an agreement after
enumerating reasons that back up the final decision.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
a common mistake that people make
when trying to design something completely foolproof
was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-- douglas adams, "mostly harmless"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)