Re: Debian doesn't have to be slower than time.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:46:16AM +0100, "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> was heard to say:
> * Michael Neuffer <neuffer@sciobyte.de> [020218 09:19]:
> > > There are practical reasons why it is not necessarily useful to use CVS for
> > > this purpose.
> >
> > Which are ?
>
> 1) Manage upstream-versions and patches in cvs in an visible way is not
> that easy, ecspecially when upstream uses cvs itself and the directory
> structure and filename change a lot.
[snip]
> 3) Development in debian is distributed. Developer can use those tools
> which fit best to him. Having an local cvs-represetory and putting the
> finished version to an Debian-cvs is not that easy.
I was looking at arch over the weekend, and if it can do half of what
its manual claims, it would mostly eliminate these two problems
(although unless upstream was using arch as well, imports would still be
a problem)
Just a thought I'm throwing out; I'm not sure what I think of arch
yet. It's too new now to use for something like this, anyway.
Daniel
--
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
| "We've got nothing to fear but the stuff that we're |
| afraid of!" -- Fluble |
\---------------------- A duck! -- http://www.python.org ---------------------/
Reply to: