Re: arch, svn, cvs
* martin f. krafft:
> also sprach Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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 The list is somewhat outdated, and it doesn't reflect some things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:
> 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. 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