| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Debian switching to EGLIBCDebian switching to EGLIBCPosted May 6, 2009 16:02 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063)In reply to: Debian switching to EGLIBC by mbanck Parent article: Debian switching to EGLIBC
Ew, that's even worse. CVS may be a throwback to the previous century, but SVN never had any justification for existing at all. It was never enough of an improvement over CVS to be worth the difference, and it's verging on insane to use it for new projects these days instead of git.I do have to wonder why for the love of ${DEITY} the new fork is hosted in CVS. It is the 21st century you know!No idea where you got that idea from but this page says it is a subversion repository.
(Log in to post comments)
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 16:31 UTC (Wed) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link]
EGLIBC is two years old. It is just Debian which recently decided to switch. Again, glibc is currently (as in, yesterday, today) switching to git and it doesn't make sense to discuss EGLIBC's SCM right now before they have or have not decided to follow the switch (I guess they will follow sooner or laster, but who knows).
Michael
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 16:45 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
One argument for svn over cvs is that git-svn exists, but there is no equally straightforward way to do git-cvs...
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 19:50 UTC (Wed) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] [SVN] was never enough of an improvement over CVS to be worth the difference,Having used both extensively, I must strongly disagree. SVN is a huge improvement over CVS. The main potential issue with SVN is that it uses the central repository model. For many projects there's no problem with that; it really depends on how the project is organized. I have no idea whether it makes sense for eglibc.
|
|
||||||||||||