<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body { margin-bottom: 1px; line-height: normal; margin-right: 4px; font-variant: normal; margin-top: 4px; margin-left: 4px }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom: 1px; margin-right: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-left: 4px">
<DIV> <br>
<br>
>>I think what we've more or less decided at this point is that our CVS<br>>>repository is very poorly laid out at the moment, and needs to be<br>>>reorganized (as well as the installation location of files so the stuff<br>>>that the webserver isn't supposed to see doesn't have to be under the<br>>>docroot of the webserver). When this reorganization happens, it's more<br>>>than likely it will break people being able to upgrade a live production<br>>>installation via CVS in place (it would have to be moved out of the<br>>>docroot then upgraded, then reinstalled back to the docroot). That in<br>>>itself seems like a very good reason to bump the version number, since<br>>>people expect major installation process changes when a major version<br>>>number changes.<br><br>>That's fine, but why not switch to svn at the same time. The fact that<br>>you can't move files without breaking people following along in cvs is bad<br>>bad bad and svn fixes this problem which makes it good good good. :)
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I will add my vote to switching to subversion. We have been using svn for our bugzilla development and are very pleased with the functionality.
</DIV>
<DIV>It also makes merging branches a breeze. That is how we were able to get the rc3 code merged into our rc2 customizations.
</DIV>
<DIV>Besides, svn supports directory changes. Need I say more :)
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--<br>Greg Hendricks
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><br> </DIV>
</body>
</html>