On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:27:16AM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:37:53 +0100
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> > We have had good success with subversion, 
> 
> I looked at subversion before deciding on Arch. The main downside
> I saw to subversion was that merging across branches was as painful
> as wil CVS. Arch on the other hand has two powerful merging 
> methods and there is a thrid one on the way. This allows me to
> run a couple of parallel developement branches, share those that
> need to be with other external developers and merge acorss the
> branches pretty much at will. 
> 
> I have not seen another source contol system which handles
> branches as nicely as Arch.

Well, arch and subversion are different kind of system. subversion is a good
cvs replacement, while arch aims more at the bitkeeper category. I tried to
setup an arch repo for the parted project almost a year ago, and utterly
failed, since it was so complex to setup, and needed some kind of black magic
knowledge and hand intervention to setup right, but then this has hopefully
been fixed since then. 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. The fact that each tag is indeed a branch
in subversion may be confusing though, and imposes some dicipline on the user.

Friendly,

Sven Luther