Re: Perl4caml packaged
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:08:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 07:22:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:26:06AM +0100, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Well, this would speak for moving the archive to arch, since it has
> > distributed repostiory model, but my small interaction with arch showed
> > me that it really is a pain to use, especially the tagging is very very
> > non-intuitive and non-documented.
> I will grant that for someone moving from CVS, arch does have a steeper
> learning curve. However, to make it work pretty much like CVS, just
> tla id-tagging-method explicit
> Then you tla add, tla delete, tla mv, etc. files just like you would
> with svn. Or CVS.
Well, the nice feature we use in subversion is the ability to easily
'tag' release, which is extremely difficult and undocumented in arch.
I know you have to use configs, but i was never explained how to do that
cleanly. And i did ask the #arch folk about this, while trying to get
the parted arch repo to work. Very unobvious setup.
> > But then, i hear there is also a svn-mirror or something such, which
> > allows you to make a distributed repository. You could then have a local
> > copy on your laptop, and sync with the main repository from time to
> > time.
> It's never going to be as good as Arch without more support in svn
> proper, since to be as good as arch, you have to be able to track
> changes across repositories. I've spoken to the Svn people about that,
> and they said "not before 1.0, and maybe not after that." We'll see.
1.0 has just recently been released though, or am i confunding ?
> If svn does eventually pick that up, it'd be kick-ass, but it would
> represent a major change to its workings for sure.
Or if arch would become more user friendly, that would satisfy the need
also. Right now you have to go hacking inside some obscure config file
for it to work well, and the arch people tell me the tutorial is mostly
obsolet, so ...