11 Jun
2007
11 Jun
'07
12:53 a.m.
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
We have a well defined structure. It may not be optimal - but that's another issue. As far as I'm concerned, SVN vs CVS totally separate from Beman's proposal. Given all the opportunities/issues raised by a move to SVN, maybe the change to SVN should be postponed until Beman's proposal is impemented.
No ! Since, as you say, the SVN <-> CVS change is orthogonal to the rest, and since changing structure is *much* more easy in SVN, there is no reason not to start with the SVN move.
regardless of whether its easier or not with SVN or CVS or whatever, I'm arguing that the structure shouldn't be changed until the testing is fixed. Robert Ramey
Regards, Stefan