Re: conversion to subversion
Bas Zoetekouw <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter wrote: [...]
> > And what are the gains from moving to Subversion? Besides tracking copies
> > and having a globally unique revision history, I can't really see any
> > gains as far as webwml is concerned. But feel free to enlighten me.
> Better robustness, for one. While converting the CVS repository to svn,
> we found quite a few half-commited files and stuff like that. That
> shouldn't happen with subversion anymore.
Can you fix the ones in CVS, please?
> Furthermore, svn has a bit
> nicer offline operation than CVS (although it is nothing like git, of
What offline operation does svn have now? I thought it only worked
offline properly with things like git-svn.
> and it supports things like file moves (retaining chinge history).
Peter wrote "besides tracking copies".
> Also, subversion is actually actively maintained upstream.
Is this to suggest that CVS isn't actually actively maintained
upstream? info-cvs seems to be ticking over still, so why?
Please, don't move from CVS to SVN and junk all the contributors and
many of their tools for a minimal gain like tracking file moves.
Consider moving to something which gives new useful features like
distributed working directly, like git.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct