Please disregard this last message I sent out. It got sent half-baked.
I'll finish it up and send it again.
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 09:58, Reid Spencer wrote:> LLVMers,
>
> The oversight group has been kicking around the idea of getting a better
> version control system than CVS. The problem is, we're not quite sure
> what "better" means. So, we thought we'd ask your opinions.
>
> There are three options, unless someone strongly advocates another
> solution:
>
> 1. Stay with CVS
> 2. Use Subversion
> 3. Use arch
>
> Some of the things we're trying to accomplish are:
>
> * Atomic commit (all changed files in a change set get committed
> or none of them do). [Subversion]
> * Apache httpd based authentication/authorization [Subversion with
> mod_webdav]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050107/76b5ca27/attachment.sig>