Thanks for your information. We all hope vxl is getting better after all.
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:51:20 +0000 > From: email@example.com > Subject: Re: Major repository changes afoot > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > > > Yu, > > We have been considering moving from CVS to Subversion for a long time, several years actually. And indeed, as you state, we didn't see enough advantages to justify the effort. > Summary of the discussions was that the main advantage of svn over CVS is the fact that files can be moved, i.e., that a file or directory rename does not loose history. > The reason that we wanted to go ahead with the move right now is exactly because we plan a large file rename action, which has been held back until this CVS-->svn move. > Plans are to move vidl2 to core, name it vidl, and to first rename vidl to vidl0 or something like that. But without losing history. > > See e.g. the threads in the vxl-maintainers mailing list with the following subject lines: > - vxl migration from cvs to svn (jan. 2009) > - CVS->subversion proposal (aug. 2008) > - subversion, ffmpeg and vxl (aug. 2008) > > > -- Peter. > > > --- YuLeonard <email@example.com> wrote: > > > My first reaction to this change is: "why?", > > considering the fact subversion is not a substitute of CVS as > > its developers claimed. CVS and subversion both have its > > advantages and disadvantages. I also browse the vxl > > maintainer list and see no discussions on this migration. > > Though not a vxl developer, I am interested in the reason > > for the repository change. > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Låna pengar utan säkerhet. Jämför vilkor online hos Kelkoo. > http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100390123-lan-utan-sakerhet.html?partnerId=96915014