From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2004-04-22T20:31:34+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: VCS systems (was Re: Dormant projects (was Status of AOP in Ruby) )

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:54:31 +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> gabriele renzi wrote:
>> If I understod right some talks on #ruby-lang it seem that subversion,
>> while being generally better than cvs, still suffer from the basic
>> problem of being a centralized VCS.
> True, but that's not a killer for me. I hate its slew of dependencies,
> not least apache2 and db4. Nice if you like that kind of thing, but it
> means you have to svn dump your repos to get them into another system,
> and it takes an afternoon to install it. yuk.

Actually, svk (I think that's the name) implements a distributed form of 
svn. I haven't played with it, but it looks okay.

>> This is interesting:
>> http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/bese-devel/2004-March/000073.html

>> Btw, matz just said in ruby-core 2730 that ruby development will switch
>> to using DARCS, I wonder if this relates to his choice to adopt the
>> glasgow haskell compiler has the default backend for Rite.
> Another one to try - cool, thanks.
> Anyone else got a favourite?

How well does DARCS work with Windows? I know that one of the nice 
advantages to both Subversion and CVS at this point is that they have strong 
Windows integration provided through the Tortoise(CVS|SVN) projects.

I know that I've looked at a wide variety of [VS]C systems and have rejected 
most of them because they either cannot work on Windows at all or have 
significant issues in working on Windows or cannot be a server on Windows.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2004.04.22
                                         * 07.27.13