Hi, Le mer, 26/05/2004 à 21:52 +0930, Craig Keogh a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 19:15, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez wrote:Hi all, On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 17:40 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:May I suggest that you consider using Arch Revision Control System?Sure you may! I've set up a read-only arch archive which has the current state of g-k-m. See my blog entry for details at http://www.gnome.org/~mariano/blog/2004/04/29 This sucks because I have to update it manually from changes in CVS. Hopefully it'll evolve into something better. -- mI am trying to get into gnome hacking. Following the activity on the gnome-love, I turn my interest to gnome-keyring-manager. But I am really struggling with revision control. Mariano setup arch, as he explained above. I was using that for a while, following the patches created from arch. But now I find gnome-keyring-manager is newer in CVS, and there are patches created from cvs. The wiki says use cvs: http://gnomesupport.org/wiki/index.php/GNOME%20Keyring%20Manager%20Wiki Which revision control application should I be using?
The only reason the arch repo was not up to date is simply that I forgot to update it... The cvs copy is the ‘canonical’ copy, the arch repository being just a mirror. The only reason the arch repo is there is so that people who do not have access to cvs.gnome.org but only to anoncvs.gnome.org can see up-to-date sources (assuming I remember to sync...) So, to answer your question: use either one, and if the arch copy is old, poke me and I'll fix that ;-) -- m -- Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <msuarezalvarez arnet com ar>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée