Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

Clay Loveless wrote:

On 4/17/04 11:07 AM Pacific Time, Jan Schneider (jan@horde.org) wrote:

See above, *my* point of view is that not the first package should make it into PEAR, but the best.

It's at this point that I'm convinced that at least half the people jumping in on this thread haven't even reviewed the SCM_SVN code or architecture.

Hi, it really seems to me like a bunch of really smart and competent people are the people who are really involved with this thread on both sides or the argument. So I am quite certain that in the end you guys will come up with a good solution. I think the recent mails from Clay and Jan really seemed to show off where the differences in POV are and now you just need to resolve the conflicting views one by one. It also seems that Volker has some good stuff to add. So what I wanted to say is that you all are really doing a hood job of getting to the root of things and that "outsiders" need to really know what they are saying before they jump in. Otherwise they run the danger of heating up a debate that was well on its way in the right direction anyways. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07