Re: Distributed revision control, etc.

[Ken Raeburn]

On Jan 25, 2006, at 08:29, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
> > But like I said, Arch being sufficient isn't, by itself, a reason not
> > to support something else.
>
> There will always be a single "official" repository, so the  
> question is
> which RCS should be used to manage this one, if we were to switch to
> another RCS at all.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest anyone should be stuck maintaining two  
repositories for a single software package.  Just that it doesn't  
seem too unreasonable to me that someone should want the main one to  
be SVK or whatever.

> I personally mirror the current CVS repository in an Arch archive,  
> in a
> `cvs' branch from which I regularly merge my own development branch.

Yep, I'm pulling Guile into my subversion repository too, now and  
then...

> Gatewaying among several distributed RCS with similar semantics (e.g.,
> atomic commits, changeset-oriented, etc.) should be much easier.   
> I.e.,
> if the official repo is an Arch (or Darcs) repo, it should be quite  
> easy
> for people willing to do so to perform some gatewaying with their
> favorite DRCS.

I've experimented a little with the "VCP" perl package under svk;  
it's got some issues, but at first glance seems like a reasonable  
thing.  The source and destination repositories can both be of  
several types, though I don't know if it supports Arch for either  
yet.  (And there's a "vcp" program, it doesn't have to be used via svk.)

Ken