Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:43:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Cc: tobez@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060306164301.S50149@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060306101831.GA21025@tara.freenix.org> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org> <200603051930.25957.peter@wemm.org> <863bhwvtrh.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060306101831.GA21025@tara.freenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Dag-Erling Smrgrav: >> svk is not an alternative to svn, it's an svn client. > > As far as I understand svk, it is more than "just a svn client". It uses > some of the svn layers (file system, remote access for example) but add > layers of its own for the distributed/decentralised concept. > > If it is just as way to replicate a svn repo, work on it and get the csets > back to the main one, then it could be useful but it would not be a full > dVCS. The other nice thing about svk is that it is able to speak to other revision control systems and pull changes between them -- i.e., CVS, Perforce, etc. A "bad" thing about svk is its dependence on Perl, which we just finished expunding from the base system a few years ago. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060306164301.S50149>