[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import
From: |
Larry Jones |
Subject: |
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) |
Mark D. Baushke writes:
>
> Between now and the release of svn 1.0, I believe it is possible to
> address a number of the perceived limitations of CVS, but we need to
> determine how such changes fit into the overall way that CVS works
> rather than just adding a series of hacks.
>
> If anyone has really thought out a series of changes to CVS that allow
> for an evolution into a more useful system, they are encouraged to post
> either on address@hidden or address@hidden about them.
My personal opinion is that CVS has gone about as it can go without
completely redesigning and reimplementing it. In some ways, that is
what subversion has tried to do. If they're successful, more power to
them; I'll be switching along with everyone else. If not, we'll still
be here.
-Larry Jones
That's one of the remarkable things about life. It's never so
bad that it can't get worse. -- Calvin
Re: Multilevel vendor branch import, Ross Patterson, 2003/10/28
- more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Richard Pfeiffer, 2003/10/28
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Mark D. Baushke, 2003/10/28
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least, Larry Jones, 2003/10/29
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/29
- Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least interesting though!), Tom Copeland, 2003/10/29
- Thx!, Richard Pfeiffer, 2003/10/29
Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least, Larry Jones, 2003/10/29
Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/29
Re: more cvs performance questions (I think they are at least, Richard Pfeiffer, 2003/10/29