[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edgar Gonçalves) writes: > Hi all! I've recently discovered the ongoing work on DVC, a few months after > having tried non-CVS revision systems. So, after a lot of websurfing for > information, and after trying tla and baz, I've come to the conclusion that > for > windows I would be better off with bzr or darcs.
Clearly. tla's design is relatively windows-hostile (use of hardlinks, long pathnames, ...), and baz's objective of windows portability has never actually be reached. Note that baz is mostly abandonned (although this is not the official position of Canonical which claims it's maintained, no one has been working on it for months), and tla does not plan major evolution. So, while they have been excellent at a time, I believe the future is somewhere else. > From here, I had to choose between the ability to use plink to > access sftp servers (darcs), or have a nice, friendly emacs > interface (bzr). So for now I'll stick with bzr! :) Option 3 : implement a darcs back-end for DVC ;-). > First of all, DVC with baz is working fine in windows. It's a great frontend! Good news. Indeed, none of the DVC developers use Windows AFAIK. And since baz/tla work badly on Windows, we never considered Windows portability as a priority. However, with the hg and bzr back-ends, we should definitely work on it. > I hope this can help dvc to get a few more Windows customers :) > Cheers! What would be great is if you can set up your own branch, and apply those fixes cleanly (i.e. protect your changes with (eq system-type 'windows-nt) ). -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Xtla-el-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xtla-el-dev
