Why not upgrade CVS? Subversion, GNU Arch, etc. [LWN.net]

Why not upgrade CVS? Subversion, GNU Arch, etc.

Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:40 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433)
In reply to: Why not upgrade CVS? Subversion, GNU Arch, etc. by piman
Parent article: Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)

Nobody's mentioned BitKeeper ... it sounds to me like Arch is meant to be similar in principle.

I do not want ANYONE updating my archive. And the central project archive should only be updated by ONE person (or a group agreeing amongst themselves).

Linus uses BitKeeper because he can give everyone *read* access to his tree and they keep themselves up-to-date. He has *read* access to other peoples' trees and can update his system from theirs as he sees fit.

I get the impression Arch is designed to work the same way - you need one person keeping the master repository up-to-date by *pull*ing from the developers, and the developers keeping up-to-date by *pull*ing from the master.

If you think in CVS terms you won't understand what the hell is going on, because CVS is a *push* system - the deverloper pushes updates to the central repository.

Cheers,
Wol

(Log in to post comments)

Why not upgrade CVS? Subversion, GNU Arch, etc.

Posted Jun 4, 2004 1:46 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

I hate to sound ungrateful and demanding, but for using the pull
model it would be nice to have an integrated email push of the
comment logs. I'm not familiar whether bitkeeper provides such
but I haven't come across such a thing in the docs for arch.
Yeah, I know it wouldn't be too hard to hack up an alternative
interface for oneself...so I'm just giving feedback that this would
be a desirable feature add-on.