From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1ff569ca5808e0b9a00799bbf594fcc8@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 18:20:08 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <1a387abb8b40a66c414b0110c8072f06@ladd.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] hgfs
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ee0d22a6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> in any event, back to the subject at hand.  this in-depth discussion of various
> revision control systems seems to assume that revision control is the key issue.

Much as I agree with you that clear objectives are essential to any
type of success (a tautology if ever there was one - what do you
measure success against, if the objectives aren't clear?), it was the
code review bit that I perceived as an obstacle.

But you're right, and your objectives make a fine starting point.
They ought to attract discussion, though, as they seem to me a little
too specialised (?).  I want a little time to ponder over them,
anyway, as it takes me a while to grasp all the ramifications.

L.