Hey everybody. I'm sure that there are mailing lists that discuss revision
control systems. This isn't it, this is for nmh. Maybe all this energy
going into discussing tools can go into working on nmh instead.
Jon Steinhart
___
Nmh-workers mailing l
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:17:54 -0500
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Similar can be said in favour of BitKeeper with the addition of MUCH
>> better merge tools than either Arch or Subversion along with a large
>> host of other developer-centric niceties.
> IIRC, B
J C Lawrence wrote:
> Similar can be said in favour of BitKeeper with the addition of MUCH
> better merge tools than either Arch or Subversion along with a large
> host of other developer-centric niceties.
IIRC, BitKeeper is not a viable option for people who hack on CVS, GNU
Arch, OpenCM, or simi
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:54:10 +1000
mlh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:54:08PM -0400, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> With arch, everyone can keep hacking/commmiting/branching/ merging
> with each other and then merge in the 'main' repository at some later
> time. That's just the
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:54:08PM -0400, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> >Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control
> >system?
> >
> >It's highly distributed nature makes it ideal for the style
> >of development that nmh has.
> >
> >Have a look at http://wiki.gnuarch.org/
>
> It seems inte
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:27:40PM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control system?
> >
> > Currently, I'm using it for all of my Debian packages. I'm planning on
> > migrati
Thanks for the info you two. I'll have a look. The ability to have some
access from a disconnected laptop certainly has its appeal. It would be
great to do multiple check-ins on the road to checkpoint work, and then
have it all synced up when I reconnect sounds wonderful, if I'm
understanding corre
>Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control
>system?
>
>It's highly distributed nature makes it ideal for the style
>of development that nmh has.
>
>Have a look at http://wiki.gnuarch.org/
It seems interesting ... but I guess I don't see any compelling reason
to switch, personally.
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control system?
>
> Currently, I'm using it for all of my Debian packages. I'm planning on
> migrating my personal GNATS development to it, and synchronizing with
> the savann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control system?
Currently, I'm using it for all of my Debian packages. I'm planning on
migrating my personal GNATS development to it, and synchronizing with
the savannah CVS repository.
It's a paradigm shift from classic
Has anyone had a look at the gnu-arch revision control
system?
It's highly distributed nature makes it ideal for the style
of development that nmh has.
Have a look at http://wiki.gnuarch.org/
Matt
ps. i sent a another version of this mail but it's being
held waiting for moderator approval
11 matches
Mail list logo
