John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:31:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> Right, bzr is great when you have a designed person to integrate
>> contributor's changes after review.
>>
>> But if you have a set of equal developers, bzr can be also used in a
>> very similar way to Subversion, where all commits go to a central
>> repository, and nobody has to collect them. It's just a matter of
>> setting up a directory somewhere with the appropriate write permissions,
>> and say "This is our canonical archive, the uploader will include what
>> it's in there, nothing more, nothing less".
>
> I would say that this goes for darcs as well, but even more.
>
> Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG signatures
> even. These can be processed in an automated way on the server,
> verified against, for instance, the Debian keyring, and then applied to
> the repository.
The only bad thing I know about darcs, for my kinda of use, is the
miss of file permission recoring. That's annoying for packaging and
like.
Besides that, darcs rocks.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
