On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Nils O. [ISO-8859-1] Selåsdal wrote:
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 10:05, Pau Aliagas wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 law(a)redhat.com wrote:
> > What I want to see is the ability to sandbox developers. Hell, whatever
> > we end up using for Fedora may be useful for the GCC project since we're
> > branch-happy these days :-)
> Have you tried arch?
arch is imho a pain to use.
I think it's much more difficult to setup a server (be it CVS, SVN,
whatever) than arch. Your server is your filesystem.
Setting up your repository is two commands: archive-setup + init-tree
Upgrading your branch to your ancestor is just one command: replay
Branching a project: tag source target
It doesn't look a pain to me :)
If anything else that CSV should be used/considered it ought to be
subversion. Though usable now, it doesn't have a stable release yet.
I won't comment on that. I only say that promoting development is much
easier when you can work as freely as you can with arch, even
disconnected. And you are sure tht yourchanges can be easyly upstreamed.
And I'm sure there are lots of other suggestions for version
systems also. Better stick with CVS for now..
CVS is way too limited to promote distributed developemnt, branches are
difficult to get right, no renames, no patchsets... it does the work but
Anyway, I don't want to start an off-topic discussion.