* Sebastian Freundt <hroptatyr@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Okay, after we seemingly have unified our opinions on bug trackers,
> here's the next quest:
I dub thee "Sir Quest-a-Lot"!
> Which version control system to take?
> I've seen looking through the threads at least myrk and heatsink
> mentioning this issue.
And don't forget Hynek (who I think brought it up first). And yes, I
too have been thinking about it because of what has been said by others.
> I'm _not_ against CVS, but i really think we should consider
> tracking at least with one other tool: gnu arch.
Because of the difficulties that I foresee in keeping multiple vc
tracking systems in sync, I'd rather we choose one and stick with it.
We can always switch to something else later if it doesn't suit us.
> No matter what, arch, svn or darcs will sooner or later supersede
> CVS and other rcs-like vc-trackers. But that's not the reason I
> came up with arch (tla), it's more the possibility of developing
> in a decentralised way.
So, would it work in a similar fashion to the way Linus runs the Linux
kernel? I'd maintain the main "central" repository, and other
developers would have their own separate ones. When it comes time for
me to roll out a release I "pull" in patches from the "subsidiary
repositories".
And there's some deep dark magic voodoo chicken spell somewhere that
keeps everything in sync?
I actually _do_ like the sound of this.
> And no matter what, even if the sxemacs project decides closedly
> against another vc tracker, I _will_ personally track using arch.
You are obviously quite familiar with this "arch" thingy. Can you
explain to me the various pros and cons in comparison with CVS?
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| In space, |
| No one can hear you rip a stinky |
|------------------------------------<steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>---|
pgphCvdtKqKrh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|