gatman1000 wrote on Wednesday, March 09, 2005:
I’m not thrilled about switching to CVS from Subversion.
I can understand why people drag their feet to make the switch from CVS to SVN. These things take time. But SVN -> CVS? Yikes!
To be completely fair, I suggest that we ask all doctors using openEMR return to using rectal thermometers.
I’ve said my peace;-)
gatman1000 wrote on Wednesday, March 09, 2005:
Okay so I lied.
One last thing.
What about berlios? It’s based on Sourceforge but supports SVN.
drbowen wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:
Hey,
I still use rectal thermometers. Sometimes the old ways are just better. I use the ear themometer when I just need a bullet in my EMR. If I really need to know the temperature, a rectal thermometer is still the gold standard.
I will be glad to go into a discourse of the pros and cons of rectal thermometers and related testing. More to the point. I’ll bet Walt Pennington prefers subversion and that he can support his position eloquently.
Sam Bowen, MD
sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:
Time to fix some more bugs. I’ve just finished checking things out again with my old friend CVS. And I was just starting to really like subversion.
Somehow the rectal thermometer analogy feels appropriate…
gatman1000 wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:
I wasn’t trying to cause a stir. But Subversion *is* way better. I forgot how much until I did a cvs status. I guess I’ll see if I can get tkcvs working again. But this is not a case of “the old ways are better”.
I thing I don’t understand is: Why the change had to occur without warning. At least I didn’t know it was coming;-)
drbowen wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:
I think we all agree on both counts. I’m just saying I think Walt will have valid reasons. We’ll just have to wait for him to respond if he so chooses.
tekknogenius wrote on Sunday, March 13, 2005:
Isn’t CVS the standard for sourceforge?
andres_paglayan wrote on Sunday, March 13, 2005:
from sourceforge,
"Subversion: At this time, SourceForge.net does not provide services related to the Subversion version control system. CVS has existed for a very long period of time and has reached a high level of maturity, ideal for many applications. Though we are aware that the design of CVS lacks certain types of operations that Subversion has been designed specifically to handle (like directory handling), extensive testing and analysis must be carried out to ensure suitability as an addition to our service offering. The SourceForge.net team is continuing to monitor the progress of Subversion (which released version 1.0 in early 2004), its adoption for use by hosting providers and large repository applications, as well as documentation and client software. We will continue to evaluate Subversion and may provide Subversion services in the future."
drbowen wrote on Saturday, March 19, 2005:
Thanks Andres,
wink, wink.
Anybody interested in a SVN server?
Sam Bowen, MD