From: "Tom Browder" <tbrowder@cox.net>
To: <gnu-arch-users@gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:06:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcTaXjRExBexA59DQNqg4zJAf7eIbA==
Message-Id: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 811
Lines: 26
One major thing that subversion offers that I haven't seen on the
comparisons between arch and other scm programs is the capability to version
control binary files with binary diffing.  This is an important feature for
me and I would like to use subversion.

However, and unfortunately, the subversion folks refuse to listen to my
CVS-user suggestions for the same type tags as rtag and use of an equivalent
to CVSROOT, otherwise I would jump on subversion.

Does arch offer or plan to offer those three features (CVS rtag equivalent,
binary diff, CVSROOT equivalent)?

Thanks.

Tom Browder


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/