Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:40 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: | > Giovanni Bajo wrote: | > | > >I'll add others: | > > | > >I would also notice that most people don't RTFM. I spent many efforts in | > >writing the Wiki page, and the benefits of SVN are apparent if you spend | > >some time reading it and studying the thing a little. To make things better, | > >something *has* to change. You can't expect SVN to be *identical* to CVS, | > >but it's very very close. | > > | > > | > Agreed, many thanks both to you and Steven. | > | > Only one request from me: before the switch takes place, can you make | > sure the instructions on the wiki are sufficiently complete and | > incorporate all the latest advices about performance and so on? I think | > this is an high priority and would even suggest delaying the switch if | > we don't have those docs ready. | | | Well i guess i should aks the harsh question, which is, are these | advantages enough for you guys, or should we just not move?
Frankly, I don't know. I would like to try first before making a definitive answer. However, reading this thread, I find the inflation on supporting tools and trickery requirements a bit daunting and too high an entry barrier. If I have to install the lastest version of (system) tool X, Y and Z -- which sometimes I can't on some of the machines I use for development -- then I would say the answer is "no". But, as I mentioned before, I have to try (probably not before next week). I'm grateful to those who put effort in documenting the process, but some of the replies I found here let me with an initial feeling of deep skepticism. | Again, there are invariably some pains associated with any switch in | workflow :) Indeed. -- Gaby
