| 1 |
Denys Duchier wrote: |
| 2 |
> Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>The last time we seriously tested svn we found that svn choked on a |
| 6 |
>>repository the size of the portage tree. The problem w/ arch (and w/ |
| 7 |
>>metacvs, which would be my preference), is that neither system has a |
| 8 |
>>good migration utility from cvs. The history of changes that is kept in |
| 9 |
>>our cvs tree is extremely valuable, and thus any new system that does |
| 10 |
>>not allow us to keep that history is a non-starter. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> arch has cscvs to migrate the full history stored in a CVS archive to |
| 14 |
> an arch (changeset-based) archive. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Cheers, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
I found |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
http://wiki.sourcecontrol.net/moin.cgi/Arch_20and_20CVS_20in_20the_20same_20tree |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
something that may be interesting if we want move to use arch/tla. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
lu |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Luca Barbato |
| 28 |
Developer |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives