On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 07:22:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:26:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, this would speak for moving the archive to arch, since it has > distributed repostiory model, but my small interaction with arch showed > me that it really is a pain to use, especially the tagging is very very > non-intuitive and non-documented.
I will grant that for someone moving from CVS, arch does have a steeper learning curve. However, to make it work pretty much like CVS, just say: tla id-tagging-method explicit Then you tla add, tla delete, tla mv, etc. files just like you would with svn. Or CVS. > But then, i hear there is also a svn-mirror or something such, which > allows you to make a distributed repository. You could then have a local > copy on your laptop, and sync with the main repository from time to > time. It's never going to be as good as Arch without more support in svn proper, since to be as good as arch, you have to be able to track changes across repositories. I've spoken to the Svn people about that, and they said "not before 1.0, and maybe not after that." We'll see. If svn does eventually pick that up, it'd be kick-ass, but it would represent a major change to its workings for sure. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
