On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 20:34 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Thursday 22 December 2005 08:13, Bret Towe wrote: > > On 12/21/05, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over > > > > to other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find > > > > the info anywhere in my archives. > > > > > > > > Could whoever's got it, post it? > > > > > > > > I'm particularly interested in hearing about CVS, SVN, mercurial, > > > > bazaar, darcs. > > > > > > I've downloaded a copy of the gentoo-x86 repo and will run tests myself. > > > Please advise me as to exactly which tests you would like to see, beyond > > > whatever I feel like doing. > > > > Also look at usability of the system. From my perspective, arch/tla is not > that easy to use. Cvs and subversion are better.
Add to this that tla is constantly misreporting and has a tendency to
mess up repositories.
For example, " I screwed up, rm file, checkout" doesn't work with
arch... You get a friendly "your repository is pristine" .... .
Right.
After screwing around with tla and tlx, their hideously annoying tag and
branch names (sheesh) their overabundance of {} and the braindeadness
of being unable to verify that my tree is really exactly the same as any
other person is seeing, I cannot speak strongly enough against this.
Git, seems useful, but a bit hard to track ( I really dislike having to
fibble around with long random characterstrings just to check out a
certain version. I can deal, but still....)
Mercurial, last I checked, was still rather fragile. Fast, decent, but
fragile. :(
svn I haven't tried, actually. Although in current terms, it seems to be
a good replacement from how we work and what we do with things.
//Spider
--
begin .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
