Re: [Bug-gnubg] cvs restored

[Michael Petch]

To clarify though - Using git *now* would be a trade off between windows
usability (integration with Visual Studio, and other MS products which have
very good Subversion and CVS support).

Distributed revision control will likely never be an issue with this
project. Its a niche product with limited developers - and I highly doubt
that people are not working on GnuBG because we use CVS. This is actually a
very small project in comparison to many.

Weight of Windows Usability vs Distributed control - hand down from my
position is that Usability should be our goal at present.

If we find we need distributed revision control across multiple servers to
support multiple teams of developers or take advantage of something that is
a must need - then sure gits likely a good choice. If there was good Git
support on Windows support right now, I'd probably say go with Git.

I'm not against Git (I use it), I'm against Git for this project at this
time.


On 05/06/09 6:44 PM, "Michael Petch" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> My hand goes up - if you upgrade away from CVS go to Subversion. I
> personally see no added value for this particular project (And how  we use
> revision control) to switch to git.
> 
> On 05/06/09 6:33 PM, "保坂範行" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Hi.
>> 
>> I'm not forcing you to use git.
>> I'm asking not to use CVS/SVN.
>> I'm asking to use distributed one.
>> There are choices, hg, bzr, etc. besides git.
>> 
>