Re: cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

2005-09-08 Thread wrobell
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 01:53 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, wrobell wrote: On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 11:03 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: Example: http://svn.pld-linux.org/svn/rc-scripts I want to keep only trunk, branches and _some_ tags, tell me how to do it, and how to

Re: cvs vs svn...

2005-09-08 Thread wrobell
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 01:36 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, Paweł Sakowski wrote: On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 10:20 +0100, wrobell wrote: - atomic commit (so we can commit patches and specs with one move and revert it easily later if there is a need) A propos

Re: cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

2005-09-08 Thread Michal Moskal
On 9/6/05, Jan Rekorajski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005, wrobell wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 18:46 +0200, Michal Kochanowicz wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 05:32:50PM +0100, wrobell wrote: let's start new war... what about moving repo to svn? Any reasons?

Re: cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

2005-09-08 Thread Jakub Bogusz
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:29:06PM +0200, Paweł Sakowski wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: At the cost of keeping ALL tags/branches locally. You're joking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm]$ du -hs SOURCES SPECS 959MSOURCES 63M SPECS Obviously svn makes

Re: cvs vs svn...

2005-09-08 Thread Paweł Sakowski
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 01:36 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: - it makes it impossible to revert by `cvs up -j` (you lose changelog entries) Is it really that important? After 6 years of work with our CVS I can't remember needing it. Then how would you/did you ever revert a non-trivial

Re: cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

2005-09-08 Thread Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
On Thursday 08 of September 2005 20:27, Jakub Bogusz wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:29:06PM +0200, Paweł Sakowski wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: At the cost of keeping ALL tags/branches locally. You're joking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm]$ du -hs SOURCES

Re: cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

2005-09-08 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Thursday 08 of September 2005 20:27, Jakub Bogusz wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:29:06PM +0200, Paweł Sakowski wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: At the cost of keeping ALL tags/branches locally. You're

Re: cvs vs svn...

2005-09-08 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Paweł Sakowski wrote: On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 01:36 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: - it makes it impossible to revert by `cvs up -j` (you lose changelog entries) Is it really that important? After 6 years of work with our CVS I can't remember needing it. Then how