[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distributed revision control, etc.

From: Ken Raeburn
Subject: Re: Distributed revision control, etc.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:04:01 -0500

On Jan 25, 2006, at 08:29, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
But like I said, Arch being sufficient isn't, by itself, a reason not
to support something else.

There will always be a single "official" repository, so the question is
which RCS should be used to manage this one, if we were to switch to
another RCS at all.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest anyone should be stuck maintaining two repositories for a single software package. Just that it doesn't seem too unreasonable to me that someone should want the main one to be SVK or whatever.

I personally mirror the current CVS repository in an Arch archive, in a
`cvs' branch from which I regularly merge my own development branch.

Yep, I'm pulling Guile into my subversion repository too, now and then...

Gatewaying among several distributed RCS with similar semantics (e.g.,
atomic commits, changeset-oriented, etc.) should be much easier. I.e., if the official repo is an Arch (or Darcs) repo, it should be quite easy
for people willing to do so to perform some gatewaying with their
favorite DRCS.

I've experimented a little with the "VCP" perl package under svk; it's got some issues, but at first glance seems like a reasonable thing. The source and destination repositories can both be of several types, though I don't know if it supports Arch for either yet. (And there's a "vcp" program, it doesn't have to be used via svk.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]