On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:17:16 +1100 Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ArX is -not- an implementation of arch. It has forked the specification > an has not been compatible for a very long time (relative to arch's > existence).
Oh. I probably should have preceded my comment with a AFAIK. I thought the intention, at least, was to keep it compatible. > > If you're just tracking your own changes, > > I'd suggest RCS. There's only one command > > that you need to know: > > > > ci -l > > Bah. > Rob Nah really. Simplicity is it's own reward. Even if you're cooperating with a few others, if they're on the same machine and the rate of change/overlap is not too great then RCS is still a definite contender. Still, I've been playing with Arch, and I think it looks pretty damn good. BTW, is barch completely dead? Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
