Re: Revision control systems

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:05:56PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 
> On 22 Sep 2005, at 17:27, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 
> >http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/
> >
> >Anyone had any experience? There is already a port to freenet, and the
> >guy who wrote it might perhaps be persuaded to update it; if not, we
> >might, eventually. The description sounds good.
> 
> I have heard that it is a bit of a kludge, a mixture of scripts.

It was once. Nowadays it is written in C. CVS was originally a mixture
of scripts too. And it remains kludgy ;).
> 
> Seriously, the most important thing with a source control system is  
> stability and reliability.  Subversion is stable and reliable, and is  
> the emerging natural successor to cvs.

Arch is fairly widely used. But I'd probably go for Darcs or ArX. Darcs
may not be quite release quality. Anything recent will have considerably
better merging and branching than Subversion or CVS. And distribution is
a major advantage for the fringe. And we have a BIG fringe.
> 
> My vote remains with Subversion.
> 
> Ian.
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDMyBbHzsuOmVUoi0RAgBrAKCDIVbNYZ2cMyBbHTQ+GPQXvmXcogCeJtTb
58vYW58xXOzE/IdZ2bmGNs8=
=ahy0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----