At Monday 2005-02-07 00:35, you wrote:
Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
At Sunday 2005-02-06 04:45, you wrote: [...] It's becoming apparent that the ONLY possibilities being considered are CVS (ancient history) and Subversion. Other than my mention of cvsnt and one other NOBODY is looking at it. not to put _too_ fine a point on it: CVSNT ELIMINATES THIS PROBLEM!!
Well, we have to look at TCO. Does CVSNT offer *other* compelling advantages over CVS *and* SVN? Because if it can't offer the other nice features of SVN, we have to weigh whether we want to switch to a one-trick pony or not. The impression I get from a quick glance is that CVSNT is just a tweaked CVS that adds a few things like smart merge and authentication.
cvs status -qq cvs ls I don't know what is considered "nice features"... cvsnt had a "move" for a while but it wasn't quite right and has been removed until it's fixed (soon, I hope since it's one of the more important things).
But Boost doesn't exactly have highly sensitive projects that require fine-grained security control, so it seems that it should be more concerned with the types of common user tasks that SVN does well in comparison to CVS.
what common tasks? personally I think we mishandle how we do things coming in to release, but since everyone else here seems to think that jerking the testers around makes sense I quit arguing. You can probably find an archive somewhere of my suggestions.
However, I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise, given additional information.
Dave
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"