carter at qosient.com
Fri Mar 17 10:30:35 EST 2006
Well, this is the reason that its hard to commit to one or the
as everyone has their own preference, thus their own way. I just
abandoned CVS as a distribution strategy in argus-2.x because
it only satisfied 1.5 individuals (who didn't add any code).
I've not even touched Subversion, so I can't make a judgement
call on that, but Apache does like snapshot tarballs for source,
something like 4x per day, and for Subversion they seem to support
CVS interfaces (ViewCVS ?) for Subversion, so maybe there is a
most common denominator we can settle with?
On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Olaf Gellert wrote:
> eric wrote:
>> I don't see a reason for CVS access when commits are only
>> performed by one
> Well, at least this would make sure that all the
> others can always check out a recent version (without
> getting patches from the mailing list).
> I would prefer subversion instead of CVS, it handles
> some things in a much more convenient and smarter
> way (for example renaming of directories).
> Dipl.Inform. Olaf Gellert PRESECURE (R)
> Senior Researcher, Consulting GmbH
> Phone: (+49) 0700 / PRESECURE og at pre-secure.de
> A daily view on Internet Attacks
More information about the argus