In-Reply-To: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:25:22 -0800
To: "Tom Browder" <tbrowder@cox.net>
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
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: 1290
Lines: 37

On Dec 4, 2004, at 16:06, Tom Browder wrote:

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

	There has been discussion of binary diffs a while back, but I don't 
remember quite what came out of it.

	What do these other features mean to you, though?  subversion is meant 
to be a better CVS, while arch is meant to be a better revision control 
system.  In order to do this, you have to not assume that the CVS way 
of doing things is the best way.

	Depending on what you're trying to accomplish.  ``tla tag'' might do 
what you require from rtag.

	It would probably be in your best interest to learn the arch way of 
doing things and see if you can still tolerate the CVS way of doing 
things afterwards.  :)

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________


_______________________________________________
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/