[SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement
MatthewClark at InLesserTerms.net
Thu Mar 16 10:42:36 EST 2006
I hate to jump in so late, but since everyone is throwing in their two cents, I figured I'd throw in mine, too :).
I have to agree with Dave's point: having a single SCM would be good for people like me: if there are multiple places for different things, I tend to become anxious when working with any one thing (heck, sometimes I'll perform vi commands in nano, that's how easily mixed up I can get). That's just me, though. If I knew that the one and only SCM available contained everything we had, well, it'd just be easier for me (and others, I imagine).
Plus, the KISS concept is ideal (right?). Keeping things simple helps reduce error...
From: sm-discuss-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of David Kowis
Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 09:32
To: sm-discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with having multiple SCM's.
My only problem with having multiple SCM's is that if a new developer
wants to contribute, but isn't sure where they want to contribute, they
will have to learn multiple SCM's and the commit methodologies applied
to each one. I, personally, would find that annoying. I would like to
see the entire project using one SCM. Keeps it simple, keeps the code
together and in the same format (backend storage). Less to manage.
ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
Source Mage GNU/Linux
Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
find easier ways to do something.
- Robert Heinlein
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SM-Discuss