Re: source control management for Octave

[Stefan van der Walt]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:47:11AM -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  5-Oct-2005, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> 
> | Octave is currently being hosted in CVS -- but is there any reason why
> | we couldn't move over to Subversion?
> 
> David Bateman already mentioned that someone would have to do the work
> to make the switch.

I wouldn't mind doing it, but then I would need access to the server.
Otherwise, I can create all the necessary scripts on my side,
and you can simply modify and run them over there.  As I mentioned in
my previous e-mail, it takes all of 10 minutes.

> Also, those of us with write access to the real repository would have
> to learn a new system.  I'd want to make sure that the switch was
> really worth the effort.  Is Subversion that much better?  What about
> arch?  Is either integrated with Emacs?

Subversion is much more friendly than CVS.  You have truly atomic
commits, it handles directories, file deletes and moves correctly, it
branches without cost, it limits bandwidth usage etc. etc.  The
advantages are many, including that there is no learning curve
(subversion is basically cvs enhanced).

Arch is a nightmare -- the learning curve is very steep indeed.  A
package like Mercurial does the same thing, but in a logical and easy
to understand way.

And yes, there are emacs interfaces available for subversion.

Regards
Stéfan