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: Erik de Castro Lopo <ocaml-erikd@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS
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 :-).

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"There is no satisfactory substitute for excellence."
-- Dr. Arnold O. Beckman