also sprach Roland Mas <email@example.com> [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 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 <firstname.lastname@example.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"
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)