[TriLUG] Alternatives to CVS

[Tanner Lovelace]

Joseph Tate said the following on 3/25/04 11:31 AM:

> I've been meaning to set up some kind of source control repository for
> my pet projects for some time now.  I have a simple CVS setup, but have
> been looking to expand my horizons somewhat.  Recently on the
> PostgreSQL-Hackers list there has been some debate over whether the
> pgsql development should be moved to something more conducive to the
> distributed development model common to open source projects.
> 
> In the mayhem which ensued, a new player in the svn vs. cvs arena was
> introduced: Arch.  I hadn't heard of it, but after doing some digging, I
> think I like it.  Here are a few links as introduction:
> 
> http://wiki.gnuarch.org/ -- The main page for Arch information.
> http://web.verbum.org/tla/grokking-arch/grokking-arch.html -- the best
> link I've seen on describing the differences between CVS and Arch, and
> the problems with CVS that Arch solves.

Is arch still written in shell?!?  Note that it also can't handle
spaces in filenames, so if you ever want to do that, don't bother
with arch.  There's also the issue that it keeps changing its name
(because of conflicts with other open source arches).

Other than that, yes, it is an open source revision control system
that is distributed like bitkeeper (but free, unlike bitkeeper).
There's some debate, however, over whether a central repository
vs. multiple distributed repositories is the way to go.  I would
maintain that for almost anything an individual user would want to
do, a central repository is much more appropriate.  And, if that's
the case, then I'd suggest looking at subversion.  (See
http://subversion.tigris.org/) It works quite well and fixes all
of the little niggling problems with CVS.

Cheers,
Tanner
-- 
Tanner Lovelace       | Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little
lovelace at wayfarer.org | yellow bolts of light! - Commander John Crichton