Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

[Robert Anderson]

--- Original Message ---
From: "Pierce T. Wetter III" <address@hidden>
To: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead
of arch.

>   I'm definitely in culture shock which is why I posted. As I
said, and 
>the FAQs say,
>  some documentation explaining that "new take on things" would
help 
>quite a bit.

You've read the tutorial, right?

>   I'm still not really sure I grok arch, and blah--blah--blah
isn't 
>really helping...
>
>   My issue right now is that any development process needs to
decide 
>where "truth" lives.

Nah.  Hopefully every line of development has some purpose.  You
think of one such purpose as "truth" (whatever that means.)  But
there's way too many ways to think about what lines mean to
pre-ordain something like this.  Maybe one of them is "truth"
with respect to customer A, and one of them is "truth" with
respect to customer B.  You get to decide all these things
yourself.  That's only a plus.

>   In CVS land, that is HEAD, from the central server. In our
case, we 
>use CVS with a pretty
>simple model, because revision numbers are meaningless for us.
There's 
>what's deployed, and
>there's what's in development. Periodically, development gets
deployed.

Ok, cool.  Then have two main lines of development:

yourstuff--devel--1.0
yourstuff--deployed--1.0

>   In arch land, you have to decide where truth lives. There's also 
>explicit provision for
>versions, which ends up confusing me, because I'm not used to
thinking 
>about versions.

You're probably thinking way too hard about this.  Each line has
a name.  That name happens to be of the form X--Y--Z.  If two
lines differ only in version number (Z), that's a hint that they
have some close relationship.  That's all.  Functionally it means
very little.  It's just another line.

Bob