On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:11:57PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > > Sure. The beautiful thing about arch is that it's designed around > > sets of changesets. Think of a changeset as a super-patch, that > > tracks file renames and symlinks and permissions. > > > There's no real clear upgrade path from CVS. Subversion has cvs2svn, > > which is undergoing heavy development and is almost there for branches > > and tags (mainline conversions have been possible for a while). There > > is a project called cscvs which is working on extracting changesets > > from CVS repositories (which is harder than it sounds, since CVS > > doesn't track changes to groups of files. > > Note that cvs2svn deals with this same problem, since subversion > effectively uses changesets as well. Any given subversion commit can > involve multiple changes to multiple files, including renames and > executablity changes. Of course it doesn't do symlinks or general > permissions yet. Yup, I meant to say "yes, they both face the same problems, but Subversion is well ahead of arch in this respect". Sorry for the confusion. -- Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> | mlspam@ertius.org | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: passwd CDC BLU-97 A/B monarchist USDOJ Fat Man kilo class
Attachment:
pgpAQJiTCRzTs.pgp
Description: PGP signature