Robert Collins wrote: > On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 01:46, Max Bowsher wrote: >>> >>> Is the shudder over Tom, or arch ? If Tom, then I can understand ;]. If >>> arch itself - have you tried a recent version? I've found arch to be >>> incredibly useful, making some of the things I'd fought with CVS to make >>> happen trivial. (Notably disconnected work and local branches). >> >> Disconnected work becomes less of a fight if you rsync the repository to >> your local box, and use shell aliases to pass appropriate -d options. >> It's not totally transparent, but it works well. > > Except you can't checkin to that repository. And you can't create > branches in it. If you want to take that route, cvsup is even better > than rsync because you can then checkin to local branches - but you have > to be *very* careful to prevent name collisions. > I've actually spent some time on this :}.
cvsup requires a remote cvsup server, doesn't it? So short of convincing overseers to install cvsup on sources.redhat.com, it isn't useful here. Or have I misunderstood it? Max.
