Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS: Conclusions

[Alex Baretta <alex@barettadeit.com>]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:37:53 +0100
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
>>We have had good success with subversion, 
> 
> 
> I looked at subversion before deciding on Arch. ...  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.
> 
> Erik

Paul Snively wrote:
 > It really does sound as though you're edging from "version control"
 > into "configuration management." If that's the case, you may want to
 > look at Arch and its surrounding tools. In particular, the
 > documentation at
 > <http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/tutorial/multi-tree-
 > projects.html>, "Multi-tree Projects and Configuration Management,"
 > might be helpful to you.

There seems to be some agreement on the fact the "Configuration 
Management Tool of Choice for Discriminating Software Company" is Arch. 
Our project seems complicated enough to seriously consider moving to arch.

We have currently reimplemented our project's storage as a 
non-denumerable set of darcs repositories, distributed in a 
discontinuous manner over our company's network. I envision a 
significant risk of complexity explosion, because darcs only supports 
branches as duplicate repositories, which sounds like a nightmare. 
However, darcs is about as much as would fit in before Christmas. Maybe 
Santa Claus will put a working arch repository under my Christmas tree...

Alex

-- 
*********************************************************************
http://www.barettadeit.com/
Baretta DE&IT
A division of Baretta SRL

tel. +39 02 370 111 55
fax. +39 02 370 111 54

Our technology:

The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml)
<http://www.asxcaml.org/>

The FreerP Project
<http://www.freerp.org/>