Re: Subversion migration.

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 19:17 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > No matter on how technically cool arch is, it's a big change for 
> > developers. Subversion is not, you can switch from Subversion to CVS 
> > without having to learn anything new.
> If anyone is interested in the differences between the command line
> interfaces of CVS, Subversion and Bazaar here:
> I think people will find that all three systems are pretty similar for
> the common operations developers use (i.e. don't discount Arch because
> of bad experiences with tla).

Thanks. This is very useful. It would be nice to also see the commands
for making /applying a patch. Apparently they are also similar to cvs,
so people might find it reassuring that they would not be forced to
change how they get contributions if using Arch.

> I also wrote up some follow-on notes about some of the features of Arch
> that are not available in CVS or Subversion, that may interest people:
> One other benefit of Arch/Bazaar that hasn't been brought up is code
> signing.  When the CVS server was broken into last year, we needed to
> check all the revisions since the last known good backup for tampering.
> If each commit is signed, it makes it more difficult to tamper with the
> repository since you'd need to break into both the developer's machine
> (where their private key is stored) and the server where the main
> archive is located.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

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