Re: [Bug-gnubg] cvs restored

[Joseph Heled]

I am not an active developer anymore, but GNUbg was never about
windows - far from it.
If I knew a move to git would push some people away from windows I
would certainly encourage the move even more.

-Joseph


2009/6/6 Michael Petch <address@hidden>:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>