* David Kastrup (2007-01-07) writes: > Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Basing the decision on such argumentation would be short-sighted. >> What does it help to use a system where people can jump right in but >> which imposes a lot more overhead on them in the long run? > > Such as?
Merging of changes between different repositories with different file and directory layouts. There are likely other advantages as well, but as I've written before, I still have to look at Arch in order to make an informed decision. >> We should not miss the opportunity now to make our lives easier just >> because "we've always done it like that." > > Could you point out where development on the scale of RefTeX would be > seriously and continuously be hampered by using CVS? See above. That might not be "serious", but with CVS we'll likely have to setup Arch repositories _in addition_ for merging purposes. > I consider it reasonable to pick a version control system that is > supported out of the box on the Emacs versions (and that includes > Emacs 21.4) for which we want to provide RefTeX support. Because RefTeX users with Emacs 21.4 will get the sources using CVS via Emacs? I doubt that. -- Ralf _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
