Re: move to subversion
Frank Küster <email@example.com> writes:
> Julian Gilbey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Suggestion: given the complexity of the tetex packages, I propose that
>> we move to a Subversion repository.
> I agree. I cannot say anything about subversion vs. arch
> vs. whatever, but a move to something more modern than cvs is surely
> a good thing.
subversion is based on the premise "CVS is a good model for version
control [but the implementation that needs improving]", arch is based
on adifferent model (distributed repositories).
>> Given that the CVS repository is also in a bit of a mess, this is a
>> very good opportunity to make such a change.
> Yes, that's a good argument, too.
except you probably want to use cvs2svn to convert the old history to
svn, and the brokenness might make this harder. but it may not.
> Can you point me to any good howto "subversion for former cvs users"?
Also, the main documentation is http://svnbook.red-bean.com/, there's
an appendix for CVS users
but mostly you just s/cvs/svn on the command line. (In emacs use M-x
svn-status from psvn.el)
> I guess we would start the svn repository completely from scratch,
or use cvs2svn
> We should probably have a copy of the sarge version in it, but
> then, for tetex-base, there's the problem of the directory move. I
> guess there isn't a "nice" solution for this?
i'm not quite sure what you refer to, but subversion does support
symlinks as well as files/dir moves