Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1046 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > SVN uses transactions and 
| > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on
| > a per project basis. 
| 
| reason?

Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
having to arse around with path prefixes.

| > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN 
| > revision IDs are actually meaningful, 
| 
| SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a
| given  time, nothing more or less.

Not repo IDs. Revision IDs.

| Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all
| their  public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any
| problems.

So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo would
be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]