Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools

Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:24:12 -0600

Gilbert Ramirez wrote:

I'd vote for not trying to manually move the ",v" files and just live
with the inadequacies of CVS. Perhaps in the future we can move to some
other tool (bitkeeper, subversion, etc.) I'd also vote for accepting the
new revision number of 1.1 so it's easier to know that the file was

recently moved.

Subversion recently went to version 1.0. Can anyone comment on itsstability, usability, and suitability as a replacement for our currentCVS environment?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools
  - From: Joerg Mayer

References:
- [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools
  - From: Biot Olivier
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools
  - From: Gilbert Ramirez

Prev by Date: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Suggested patch to mergecap.c for writing to stdout
Next by Date: Re: [Ethereal-dev] [Fwd: ClearSight Analyzer's use of Etherealdec odeengine]
Previous by thread: Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools
Next by thread: Re: [Ethereal-dev] About the reported compile problems and autotools
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread