[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: arch, svn, cvs

* martin f. krafft:

> also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> [2005.08.19.2146 +0200]:
>> The list is somewhat outdated, and it doesn't reflect some things
>> I've learnt since I wrote that pamphlet.
> If I find the time, I will contribute my comments to help get the
> page up to date. Feel free to prod me in a couple of weeks in case
> I forgot.


>> Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint:
>>   <http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot>
> Well written, but does it contribute to our discussion here? Arch
> and Baz can both be used centrally, and with a group of committers.
> It might not scale as well right now, but efforts in the direction
> of automated patch integration systems promise to close this gap.
> See for instance the patch queue manager project[0].
> 0. http://web.verbum.org/arch-pqm/

arch-pqm still requires that people publish their own repositories.
This is often a challenge for people behind firewalls.

If arch-pqm took advantage of the GNU arch capabilities and accepted
signed changesets instead of merge requests, things would be quite
different.  Such an option exists for darcs, but I haven't used it.
It still doesn't provide the satisfaction of immediate feedback, I

Reply to: