X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=esRX6JLmLqR82Xz2krG1RHiIpCm9i7eIN//m2/nMEp8=;
        b=gmUkpBy6b4hGkcrD8aQfWHined9dYeOQve9Unn6Jw2BwQO6JokRZy2a+nupFvPEU8j
         EgsEsOw9vhln7Y8LS5AeY09te/VVRx9n+IHIcTGlV/ISQReE6Vf7UAeQ8bPjB1KpgKEB
         6uyZfTBGECw1Sh0e0i5ROS6ESFhyT5tImHN4C03f9OZYpsSZuQQnmMwN0sFf5ZR2A39E
         OJiovQ8eoqYltznT5gGcRT4fNze1RHS0JsMfYhJEghVju37tqnm5yul21HrEvdBp4gps
         a4FKrmmy0sNRFS79i5dBbipLqT7MTPoFf0AINGlqvkxlAVlvSyEqt5Mpxh4Z3jaXrJUS
         ae0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <508AC939.2050205@neurotica.com>
References: <CANqhZFxYH+Y5U1ai7ey-s+4nz6eYDM2vx3aMDb7WuigNXmi4AQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<50892DC8 DOT 6080308 AT laserlinc DOT com>
	<201210251629 DOT q9PGTfes029100 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<50897B77 DOT 1030401 AT laserlinc DOT com>
	<201210251859 DOT q9PIxw7n004895 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<F720A597-665F-40D1-B1A4-E02506EE5D09 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<CAGde_xNNrA-QMcXiNQJEkPSfFGeZWLyULAqh0pZfkPAV898NQQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<90F80A7D-69D4-408D-AD92-1530A48DFB9E AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAGde_xPCOxpNub_QAVkChX_0UNVEfyNG2EVvKPXiF2arpyjcOw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<508AC939 DOT 2050205 AT neurotica DOT com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:39:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGde_xOsh31ka8MOJJNGhuSdnSuExdbFMFd9Ws-=hiHNa+aUSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf
From: Svenn Are Bjerkem <svenn DOT bjerkem AT googlemail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 26 October 2012 19:32, Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com> wrote:
>   I'm fighting with this exact problem right now.  From SCCS, to RCS, to
> CVS, to SVN...and I'm very happy with SVN, but four other developers at
> work are GIT fanatics, so I lost the vote.

git-svn can be the glue that keeps divided minds together. I am in the
oposite position: Company standard is subversion and no discussion.
Putting git on top of subversion is probably the best way to integrate
the two worlds in a corporate environment. A nice clean mainline in
subversion and all experiments distributed, but under version control
in case you quickly have to stash away the current feature to switch
to a bugfix.

>   At least I won the battle about the use of GIThub...all it took was an
> explanation of what putting the company's extremely proprietary source
> code and protocol implementations "in the cloud" actually MEANT, and
> that discussion was over...we'll have an in-house GIT server soon. ;)  I
> wish I'd had a camera handy to capture the looks of abject terror.

Gitlab in-house is what we use after a while with plain git repository.

-- 
Svenn