On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:25:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:59:41 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:21:42AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > >> > >> I don't care much, not being particularly familiar with either arch > >> or svn. If you ask me, it's cvs, but that has become unfashionable > >> of late. > >> > > > svn is cvs with steroids. It has the advantage of being quite smooth > > in upgrading from cvs for the mean developer. AFAIK arch is > > under-documented and quite difficult to use in respect with > > subversion. > > I find that not to be the case. There is a very nice tutorial > that walks one through setting up archives in arch; and I find arch > far easier to use than CVS; but I am not sure how that would compare > to subversion.
Oh well, so it's time to give it a try for me :) -- Francesco P. Lovergine
