Re: [Pyobjc-dev] CVS Sucks.

[David R. <da...@it...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I forgot to hit Reply all, so these _two_ messages only reached the 
original sender, not the list.

/ Regards, David

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Remahl <da...@it...>
> Date: 8 april 2004 23.21.02 MET
> To: Donovan Preston <ds...@ma...>
> Subject: Re: [Pyobjc-dev] CVS Sucks.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8 apr 2004, at 22.48, Donovan Preston wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8, 2004, at 4:40 PM, b.bum wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone want to move to Subversion?
>>
>> Yes. Please! Subversion is so much nicer in a lot of little tiny 
>> ways. It's also much faster for me.
>>
>> dp
>
> Me too, although I'm fairly certain my vote carries no weight at all 
> :-).
>
> I have used svn for a week, and it works really nice...A lot better 
> than CVS, especially because directory structure is versioned.
>
> The only problems I've run into so far are Mac specific. Both affect 
> CVS as well, though. The first is that there is no automatic way of 
> handling resource forks. The property data is a nice place to put it 
> though. (Also, resources will probably not be needed in this project). 
> The other is that it has the same problem with packages as CVS does. 
> As you may know, Apple's applications sometimes replace the complete 
> package (file wrapper) before writing out the new files. The .svn 
> directory is therefore wiped, causing svn much confusion.
>
> Hopefully, having a reasonably large open source OS X project move to 
> svn may increase the priority of the issue of opaque directories from 
> its current P5 (lowest) state...
>
> I'm all for a switch, anyway. Especially since SourceForge's CVS 
> servers don't have a very good track record for stability...
>
> / Regards, David

The second message:

> On 9 apr 2004, at 01.12, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Marc-Antoine Parent wrote:
>>
>> Subversion has a significant number of external dependencies.  This 
>> is not
>> a good thing.
>
> It is not a good thing, but there are statically linked installers 
> available for OS X, that just take a few megs...
>
> [http://www.codingmonkeys.de/mbo/]
>
>>> But it is also much less mainstream, so add-ons are also likely to 
>>> come
>>> fast to svn.
>>
>> Subversion has been explicitly *rejected* by the Linux kernel (went 
>> with
>> BitKeeper) and FreeBSD (went with Perforce).  Arch/tla is much more 
>> like
>> BitKeeper and Perforce in design philosophy.  It will be interesting 
>> to
>> see if folks revisit these decisions now that alternatives are 
>> available.
>
> I don't know about FreeBSD, but when the Linux kernel developers made 
> their decision Subversion was still in beta...
>
> / David Remahl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAdfOkFlFiDoclYIURAgowAJ47/bZ6qj8JNhLZx/xKIaTAZqb72ACcCLd6
2d+fEqw8nlLYWyV737NJ8/w=
=8I0G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----