RE: [lwip-devel] Mercurial

[Taranowski, Thomas (SWCOE)]

I myself prefer subversion, but we don't do a lot of exotic version
control stuff, so it's a non-issue.  I concur that CVS is fine.  If we
had to routinely incorporate a lot of development branches like some of
the busy open source projects, I might change my mind.  Also keep in
mind that some of us have some scripts built around checking out and
manipulating lwIP, so moving to a new vcs would be a pain.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
On
> Behalf Of address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:51 AM
> To: lwip-devel
> Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] Mercurial
> 
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Same as CVS really. Life's too short to go learning every new
version
> > control system, especially given that people seem to invent new ones
so
> > often.
> >
> > I've often just avoided working with a project based on its choice
of
> > version control -- if lwip had been in Mercurial I wouldn't have
tried
> > it. Life's just too short. Not that my contributions so far have
been
> > massive, mind you.
> >
> Same with me. I have been able to avoid anyhing except CVS and SVN so
> far. Not that I am strictly against mercurial (or git), but although I
> hate the idealistic discussion about different versioning systems
nearly
> as much as I hate the discussion about the best OS, I fear we risk
> 'loosing' new users if we change to a version system that isn't as
> widespread as CVS or SVN (sorry to offend linux hackers ;-).
> > Git does the job, well. It took a while to get Windows support, but
even
> >
> Hey, does anyone talk about MacOS -> GUI??
> 
> Although CVS is definitively not my first decision, I'd rather stick
to
> it unless there's a real reason to change it (or we all want to change
> to the same).
> 
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel