Peter,
 
Thanks for your information. We all hope vxl is getting better after all.
 
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:51:20 +0000
> From: peter_vanroose@yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Major repository changes afoot
> To: yulq@live.cn
>
>
> 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 <yulq@live.cn> 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


立刻下载 MSN 保护盾,保障 MSN 安全稳定! 现在就下载!