Am Do, den 26.08.2004 schrieb Villalovos, John L um 20:20: > linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 August 2004 10:48, Lon Hohberger wrote: > >> It was _designed_ to handle distributed repositories (like BK). > > > > Well, what wind is blowing, seems to be blowing in the direction of > > Arch. I'd be equally happy with either, and in any case, > > much happier > > than with CVS. Does anybody else have a strong opinion? > > I'd prefer to use Subversion. It works through our proxy servers. We > already use it for some projects we connect to. Wait, I had a problem here, my university seems to have any kind of cisco transparent proxy which somehow has eaten my subversion-requests (some strange errors in the client, usually only on commit, update worked fine), after I moved my server away from port 80 the problem disappeard. I don't know what they were doing (I am only a student, not an administrator). > If you are going to stick with your centralized development model then > CVS or Subversion is probably the way to go. Subversion > Plus Subversion comes with Fedora Core 2 by default. Not sure about GNU > Arch. > > The change from CVS to SVN (Subversion) is very very easy. I am not > sure that we can say the same about going to GNU Arch. (Note: I have > never used GNU Arch). Thats really true, if you have used cvs before, you need round about 5-10 minutes untill you can do all the things an average cvs user does day by day.
