From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IXgWR-0002pb-AY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:06:03 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IXgWM-0002mS-SU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:06:02 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXgWM-0002m7-Me
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:58 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <SRS0=n5Km=OO=mail.berlios.de=weil@srs.kundenserver.de>)
	id 1IXgWM-0001WR-0u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:58 -0400
Message-ID: <46F00571.9000207@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:53 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu Changelog Makefile Makefile.target TODO ae...
References: <15714491.1190073364790.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml01.mgt.cox.net>
	<3747123A-3545-416F-9D44-A84147B226A6@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <3747123A-3545-416F-9D44-A84147B226A6@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Philip Boulain schrieb:
> ARGH. Unless QEMU is /actually/ going to spend the time switching
> repository systems for no forward progress, _off-topic_!
>
> LionsPhil
> (SVN beats all, clearly. ;) )
I agree - it might be a good idea to switch from CVS to Subversion (SVN):

* Both are reliable and well tested.
* It is possible to migrate from CVS to SVN without loosing change history.
* Both are user friendly (not only for experts) and have a nice Windows GUI.
* Both are well supported by Savannah.
* SVN has a lot of advantages in comparision with CVS.

My personal experience: we could get all the advantages of SVN
without any disadvantage and with minimal efforts.

It would be really nice to have all those QEMU user branches which exist
today in numerous different repositories using different technology
in one place. SVN could help to achieve this goal - GIT could do it, too.

Regards
Stefan