Article:		Keeping Your Life in Subversion
Subject:		tla
Date:		2005-01-06 21:05:33
From:		ciclouseau
Have you considered Arch, and if so, why did you stick with Subversion?

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• tla
  2005-01-10 02:41:31  jmtd [Reply | View]
  
  
  Same question again, replacing 'Arch' with 'darcs', then 'monotone'...

• tla
  2005-01-07 12:10:45  joeyh [Reply | View]
  
  
  In fact I have some friends who do the same thing with arch. Subversion was an easier transition for me as a cvs user; the full pros and cons are too long to list in this space. The most interesting thing to me is something I touch on in the article -- if I do decide a better system than subversion has come along, it looks very likely that I'll be able to convert my whole repository history to it.
• tla
  2005-10-02 21:14:00  akkartik [Reply | View]
  
  
  I recently started using darcs for something like this. Instead of a single huge repository, though, I maintain multiple ones to taste. This design decision is based on darcs/tla being organized by changeset rather than file-revision. It just seems ugly to clutter up individual patches with a bunch of unrelated stuff.
  
  While I think the decision was forced by my choice of vc software, there are tradeoffs to be considered if I were to be freed from this constraint.
  
  Also, while off-the-shelf vc software does pretty well, there are some issues to consider. The big one I think about is archival. One's home directory repo will tend to grow linearly over time. Is there some way one can archive old snapshots on a reliable medium and then remove them from the repo?