So, I've played a bit with Arch; setting up repositories and working dirs, branching, committing, merging. The start was a little bumpy due to mistakes I made out of unfamiliarity with the tool. That might not had been a problem, but some error messages weren't really enlightening (one displayed some C code and the other one told me that I could not merge unrelated trees when trying to merge stuff from the trunk to a branch). I also tried DVC and my impression is that in day-to-day use (i.e. mostly committing changes) there won't be much of a difference regarding the amount of effort to get work done between CVS and Arch. One real advantage of Arch is support for merging changes between different repositories which would be useful for synchronizing the RefTeX files in the Emacs and RefTeX repositories. However, this will probably not be done very often and all the differences between CVS and Arch both on a conceptual and on a handling level will probably create more friction than we would gain from the better merge support. And, of course, there is the problem of Arch not being supported on all platforms we'd wish it was. So consequently I'd opt for CVS.
Once we all agree on that we can start setting up the repository and ask Savannah admins to copy RefTeX files from the Emacs repository over to RefTeX's own. So, does anybody else have reservations regarding CVS as the version control system for RefTeX? -- Ralf _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
