This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Git and GCC

From: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: "Samuel Tardieu" <sam at rfc1149 dot net>, "Ismail Dönmez" <ismail at pardus dot org dot tr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:56:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Git and GCC
References: <4aca3dc20712051108s216d3331t8061ef45b9aa324a@mail.gmail.com> <2007-12-05-21-23-14+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> <4aca3dc20712051347v6bb8a4dbm901d1d9ddf1dff34@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> As I said, maybe i'll look at git in another year or so.
> But  i'm certainly going to ignore all the "git is so great, we should
> move gcc to it" people until it works better, while i am much more
> inclined to believe the "hg is so great, we should move gc to it"
> people.

Just out of curiosity, is there something wrong with the current
choice of svn?  As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that gcc converted
from cvs to svn.  What's the motivation to change again?  (I'm not
trying to oppose anything.. I'm just curious, as I don't know much
about this kind of thing).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- Git and GCC
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Samuel Tardieu
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]