>>/ You can significantly reduce the time needed to apply patches to seve= ral />>/ versions of your software by using a smart revision control system. />>/ />>/ I recently discovered "arch", which has been designed to handle multiple />>/ parallell versions. It is a marvel, and it comes with really good />>/ descriptions of how to handle the problem in practice. I know that />>/ Linus Torvalds is considering it for the Linux kernel. />>/ />>/ http://regexps.com/ /> > If I had to start over, I'd be happy to consider arch (and Perforce, > and Bitkeeper, and, oh, why not, Subversion). As it is, this would > mean ripping out the foundation from our development process -- > everything we do is tied to CVS on SF. So, unless arch runs on top > of an existing CVS setup, too bad. Perforce, Bitkeeper and Subversion are all "better-breed-CVS" solutions, while I consider arch to be a "better-breed-revision-control-system". Unfortunately it currently doesn't have an import mechanism that will keep all your CVS history, so I understand that it is not an option at this time. However, it is a young project, having its first alpha release on Jan 16 of this year. At the current development pace, we may see the CVS import functionality very soon. I have sent a question about this to Tom Lord. Jacob Hallén
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4