Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS]

[David Brown]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:38:21PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:

> You're assuming that I'm reacting to disagreement.  In the case of
> svn, I'm not reacting to disagreement.  I'm reacting to refusal to
> understand/consider the issues well enough to form a disagreement, in
> the face of ample overtures laying out the basics and offering to work
> through the details.

This is a tough one.  I was actually spoken to by someone at work the
other day, telling me that we want to discourage branches.  We're using
Perforce, which has a kind of half-baked branch support.

I'm not sure how to answer things like that.  Small branches for
development are a good thing, but it is important to have tools that
support them.  People tend to think that branches are bad because tools
don't support them.  It ends up that people writing tools carry this
attitude of "branches are bad" into the development of the tool.

Since "branches are bad", and they're hard to do well, it must be best
to just skip over the issue, right?

I, for one, am thankful that Tom didn't.

Dave