On Jan 25, 2006, at 08:29, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But like I said, Arch being sufficient isn't, by itself, a reason not
to support something else.
There will always be a single "official" repository, so the
question is
which RCS should be used to manage this one, if we were to switch to
another RCS at all.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest anyone should be stuck maintaining two
repositories for a single software package. Just that it doesn't
seem too unreasonable to me that someone should want the main one to
be SVK or whatever.
I personally mirror the current CVS repository in an Arch archive,
in a
`cvs' branch from which I regularly merge my own development branch.
Yep, I'm pulling Guile into my subversion repository too, now and
then...
Gatewaying among several distributed RCS with similar semantics (e.g.,
atomic commits, changeset-oriented, etc.) should be much easier.
I.e.,
if the official repo is an Arch (or Darcs) repo, it should be quite
easy
for people willing to do so to perform some gatewaying with their
favorite DRCS.
I've experimented a little with the "VCP" perl package under svk;
it's got some issues, but at first glance seems like a reasonable
thing. The source and destination repositories can both be of
several types, though I don't know if it supports Arch for either
yet. (And there's a "vcp" program, it doesn't have to be used via svk.)
Ken
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
