From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D940BB81 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:42:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp8.wanadoo.fr (smtp8.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.23]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBIEgT8a000799 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:42:29 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0804.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A411C003E6; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:42:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from pegasos (AStrasbourg-201-1-1-183.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.73.183]) by mwinf0804.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 02FE61C003CB; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:42:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from luther by pegasos with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CffqI-0000oy-Mh; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:45:58 +0100 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:45:58 +0100 To: Erik de Castro Lopo Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS Message-ID: <20041218144558.GB3090@pegasos> References: <41C3126A.3060101@barettadeit.com> <20041217213753.GA2295@pegasos> <20041218092716.18ca0ed7.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <20041218092855.GA30614@pegasos> <20041218204915.111c63b2.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041218204915.111c63b2.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41C441D5.001 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 cvs:01 cvs:01 dec:03 dec:03 erik:04 arch:05 arch:05 probably:05 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 08:49:15PM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:28:56 +0100 > Sven Luther wrote: > > > Well, arch and subversion are different kind of system. subversion is a good > > cvs replacement, while arch aims more at the bitkeeper category. > > Yes, subversion aims to be a better CVS while Arch and Bitkeeper > aim to be a better revision control system. If you want a better > revision control system CVS is probably not a good place to > start. > > > 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. > > There is an arch way to do this: > > tla tag project--devel project--release--versionnumber > > Its even called tag. What more could you want :-). I was told that to do what i wanted to do, you would need to use arch's configs or whatever they where named, and that the tag stuff was not really upto it. I don't remember the details, it was aroudn january or so. Friendly, Sven Luther