From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1J63T4-0007oY-B0 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:28:38 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J63T3-0007n6-Ho for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:28:37 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J63T3-0007mC-1R for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:28:37 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J63T2-0007lu-TJ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:28:36 -0500 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85] helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J63T2-00038X-VB for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:28:37 -0500 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988D03EB23 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:32:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:28:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <1196963148.15804.44.camel@dv> <200712220950.50716.okuji@enbug.org> <20071222112013.GB4788@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20071222112013.GB4788@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712221328.35373.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: Switching to git? X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:28:37 -0000 On Saturday 22 December 2007 12:20, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 09:50:50AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > Finally, things like grub4dos should not be forks, they should be > > > branches. This would give then a better exposure. CVS branch support > > > is pathetic, and the same applies to Subversion, although for > > > different reasons. > > What's wrong with Subversion branching ? Or did you mean merging? Subversion's branches are as stupid as CVS's, because they don't remember what have been merged by themselves. Okuji