Denys Duchier wrote:
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


The last time we seriously tested svn we found that svn choked on a
repository the size of the portage tree.  The problem w/ arch (and w/
metacvs, which would be my preference), is that neither system has a
good migration utility from cvs.  The history of changes that is kept in
our cvs tree is extremely valuable, and thus any new system that does
not allow us to keep that history is a non-starter.


arch has cscvs to migrate the full history stored in a CVS archive to
an arch (changeset-based) archive.

Cheers,

I found

http://wiki.sourcecontrol.net/moin.cgi/Arch_20and_20CVS_20in_20the_20same_20tree

something that may be interesting if we want move to use arch/tla.

lu

--
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux                            http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Reply via email to