Re: [SLUG] version control... svn vs arch?
If you: 1. have one or few people contributing 2. care about cross platform 3. like nice gui tools (mmm tortoisesvn) pick subversion otherwise pick arch. Arch is better and branching and merging and distributed use, but: 1. it only really builds nicelylinux and maybe *bsd. Though there are builds for windows and solaris(1) 2. it has quite a shallow learning curve(2) Matt 1. http://www.zip.com.au/~mlh 2. yes shallow == more thinking/reading required. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] version control... svn vs arch?
Hi all, well I'm currently in the process of migrating to a new computer and am at the picking funky packages stage... now, at home I had been using cvs as version control - and I know it's getting dated. At work they have started using svn (subversion, that is) and it seems pretty ok to me... however I happened to overhear part of a conversation at SLUG the other day where someone was saying that ?arch (I think) was better? but didn't get to hear why... now... at the risk of starting some sort of religious war... I was wondering if those that have tried both would be willing to tell me the relative strengths of the two... or point me at a reliable source for such information. They both seem to fit what I need as just a personal user with a repository for only a few projects... but I figure if I'm going to be starting from scratch anyway - I might as well pick the one more suited to my needs. Cheers and thanks, Taryn -- This .sig temporarily out-of-order. We apologise for any inconvenience - The Management -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] version control... svn vs arch
Hi all, well I'm currently in the process of migrating to a new computer and am at the picking funky packages stage... now, at home I had been using cvs as version control - and I know it's getting dated. At work they have started using svn (subversion, that is) and it seems pretty ok to me... however I happened to overhear part of a conversation at SLUG the other day where someone was saying that ?arch (I think) was better? but didn't get to hear why... now... at the risk of starting some sort of religious war... I was wondering if those that have tried both would be willing to tell me the relative strengths of the two... or point me at a reliable source for such information. They both seem to fit what I need as just a personal user with a repository for only a few projects... but I figure if I'm going to be starting from scratch anyway - I might as well pick the one more suited to my needs. Cheers and thanks, Taryn [who needs to remember to mung her email addresses properly, or she just gets bounces...] -- This .sig temporarily out-of-order. We apologise for any inconvenience - The Management -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] version control... svn vs arch?
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 16:53 +1000, Taryn East wrote: Hi all, well I'm currently in the process of migrating to a new computer and am at the picking funky packages stage... now, at home I had been using cvs as version control - and I know it's getting dated. At work they have started using svn (subversion, that is) and it seems pretty ok to me... however I happened to overhear part of a conversation at SLUG the other day where someone was saying that ?arch (I think) was better? but didn't get to hear why... now... at the risk of starting some sort of religious war... I was wondering if those that have tried both would be willing to tell me the relative strengths of the two... or point me at a reliable source for such information. All I can really do here is to give you my opinion. In short: it's horses for courses. Arch is a very nifty tool and one day soon I'm sure I'll start using it for everything I do. Its particular strength is that it can do some amazing things with merging between branches. For cases where I want to make changes to someone else's project, I use arch and some magic scripts to keep my arch repo up to date with their CVS. Then, I do my work on a branch from that upstream repo and any time I want to pull down new changes, it's really, really easy and pretty much foolproof. On the down side, I have had real problems in using arch for day-to-day stuff. My common case in using (tracking upstream CVS) is a lot of work to setup. I use these instructions when doing so: http://rubick.com:8002/openacs/arch Which should give you some idea of what it's like to use. There are probably some utility scripts around that make it all easier but I've not looked into it enough. Subversion on the other hand is pretty much hopeless when it comes to merging branches, but it is very easy to get up to speed on and is very stable. It also doesn't leave directories with unattractive names floating around the place. Consequently, I generally use subversion for my own stuff where I'm the only one who has to deal with it (my various personal websites for example) and at work, where there's only the one branch of development and atm we're the only ones working on it. Subversion also works really well on windows and has a number of really nice GUIs for it. You can also store arbitrary meta-data about files, which could potentially be useful, but I've not found a case where it's actually saved me work. HTH, James. -- James Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] version control... svn vs arch?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:53:52 +1000 Taryn East [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, well I'm currently in the process of migrating to a new computer and am at the picking funky packages stage... now, at home I had been using cvs as version control - and I know it's getting dated. At work they have started using svn (subversion, that is) and it seems pretty ok to me... however I happened to overhear part of a conversation at SLUG the other day where someone was saying that ?arch (I think) was better? but didn't get to hear why... The main difference between to two is the goals of the projects themselves. The SVN people took a look at CVS and said to themselves the code is crufty and it can't do renames of files and directories. They then set out to fix those particular problems. Arch on the other hand said how do we make a better revision control system, that will better suit the distributed development model of most open source projects. The result is that Arch is better at : - branching and merging across branches - forking repositories, working on a private version and then merging from upstream and passing changes back upstream (via your own public branch). now... at the risk of starting some sort of religious war... I was wondering if those that have tried both would be willing to tell me the relative strengths of the two... or point me at a reliable source for such information. I use Arch for all my own stuff and onlu use SVN when I'm pulling code from an external SVN repository. Martin Pool has had a good look at both and has some very thoughtful analysis here: http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/ Erik -- +---+ Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid) +---+ It's far too easy to make fun of Microsoft products, but it takes a real man to make them work, and a god to make them do anything useful -- Anonymous -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
