Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[OT] Rant about VCS
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@w...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 08:49:15PM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:28:56 +0100
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Well, arch and subversion are different kind of system. subversion is a good
> > cvs replacement, while arch aims more at the bitkeeper category.
> 
> Yes, subversion aims to be a better CVS while Arch and Bitkeeper
> aim to be a better revision control system. If you want a better
> revision control system CVS is probably not a good place to
> start.
> 
> > That said, there is no real support for tagging in
> > arch, which is what makes subversion preferable for the debian-like usage,
> > where we tag each released version.
> 
> There is an arch way to do this:
> 
>     tla tag project--devel project--release--versionnumber
> 
> Its even called tag. What more could you want :-).

I was told that to do what i wanted to do, you would need to use arch's
configs or whatever they where named, and that the tag stuff was not really
upto it. I don't remember the details, it was aroudn january or so.

Friendly,

Sven Luther