| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
gnu archgnu archPosted Feb 23, 2004 19:42 UTC (Mon) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736)In reply to: gnu arch by elanthis Parent article: subversion 1.0 is released You're right, it does seem a bit trollish. As does the Arch cheerleading on Slashdot. And the Arch comments that were sent to the Subversion mailing list a year or so back. Arch is great, I'm sure, but it's not Subversion. If there's a good CVS import tool for Arch, let's see that announced on LWN, and then we can all talk about how great it is.
(Log in to post comments)
gnu arch Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:14 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I for one don't mind the Arch comment; thanks for letting us know about another alternative.
gnu arch Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:23 UTC (Mon) by amk (subscriber, #19) [Link] It should also be noted that arch is in a fairly early stateof development, and documentation is scanty, consisting primarily of a tutorial and a set of Wiki reference pages, both in varying states of up-to-dateness. After trying out Arch for a bit recently, I've gone to Subversion instead, and plan to re-assess Arch in a year or so (at which time I hope the documentation will be better).
gnu arch Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:37 UTC (Mon) by walters (subscriber, #7396) [Link] Check out cscvs:http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/cscvs
imports from CVS Posted Mar 30, 2004 8:01 UTC (Tue) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] I don't think conversion from CVS should be given as much weight as it often is.It is hard to do properly, it often takes a lot of admin time to do the conversion (even with svn), and at the end you produce something that you will rarely, if ever refer to. It sinks effort into an asset that will depreciate over time, as the changes become less and less relevant to new work. None of these tools force you to stop using CVS. It's easy to keep old versions in CVS, and new versions in the new system. If you need to refer to the history, or make a bugfix branch of an old release, do it in CVS. That is a *far* safer choice than hoping the conversion went properly, and if you're trying to make a bugfix branch then being absolutely safe is probably important. What I suggest is: keep existing mature trees in CVS. Try a small project in the new system: svn or arch or whatever. If you like it, start new projects in that system and see how they go. When it comes time to do a new x.0 version of your product, snapshot CVS and do future development in the new system. (People often create new CVS modules for this case anyhow.) Importing from CVS can be an interesting benchmark but it is not very relevant to day-to-day work.
|
|
||||||||||||