From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D88CBB81 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:25:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp8.wanadoo.fr (smtp8.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.23]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBI9PVo4012789 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:25:31 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0806.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 0F8591C00090; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:25:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from pegasos (AStrasbourg-201-1-1-183.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.73.183]) by mwinf0806.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BE2FA1C0009D; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:25:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from luther by pegasos with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CfatU-0007yY-6Q; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:28:56 +0100 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:28:56 +0100 To: Erik de Castro Lopo Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS Message-ID: <20041218092855.GA30614@pegasos> References: <41C3126A.3060101@barettadeit.com> <20041217213753.GA2295@pegasos> <20041218092716.18ca0ed7.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041218092716.18ca0ed7.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41C3F78B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sven:01 luther:01 sven:01 luther:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 merging:01 cvs:01 merging:01 developement:01 cvs:01 external:02 confusing:02 black:96 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: ** On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:27:16AM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:37:53 +0100 > Sven Luther wrote: > > > We have had good success with subversion, > > I looked at subversion before deciding on Arch. The main downside > I saw to subversion was that merging across branches was as painful > as wil CVS. Arch on the other hand has two powerful merging > methods and there is a thrid one on the way. This allows me to > run a couple of parallel developement branches, share those that > need to be with other external developers and merge acorss the > branches pretty much at will. > > I have not seen another source contol system which handles > branches as nicely as Arch. Well, arch and subversion are different kind of system. subversion is a good cvs replacement, while arch aims more at the bitkeeper category. I tried to setup an arch repo for the parted project almost a year ago, and utterly failed, since it was so complex to setup, and needed some kind of black magic knowledge and hand intervention to setup right, but then this has hopefully been fixed since then. That said, there is no real support for tagging in arch, which is what makes subversion preferable for the debian-like usage, where we tag each released version. The fact that each tag is indeed a branch in subversion may be confusing though, and imposes some dicipline on the user. Friendly, Sven Luther