Dropping TDB

[Clint Adams]

[moving to -dev]

I have never used darcs, monotone, metacm, mcvs, ArX, or BitKeeper.
I use tla and cvs on a daily basis, and svn and rcs a few times per
month.

> I don't trust Arch yet. Partly because of the Landry ArX vs. Official
> Lord & Co. GNU Arch split, partly because last time I tried tla-1.2 its
> documentation was incomplete and inconsistent - if things have changed
> considerably since those days, let me know and recommend which branch.

The documentation is hardly ideal, but there's enough for common everyday
operations and more.  I'm speaking of tla, which I learned by reading
web pages, --help output, and by asking people.  I haven't tried larch
or other clients.

> The thought to run regression tests before releases for all code that is
> there is unavoidable. Of course we can condemn somebody else to do that
> separately, OTOH I for one would not shed a single tear over CVS, which
> is hard to work with when it comes to branching, merging or versioning
> directory-level changes, but I need to trust the revision control
> system. CVS is ok, SVN, BitKeeper are halfway fine. I haven't used mcvs
> or Arch or ArX in production yet, and I'm not familiar with the latter
> two, gateways, browsing scripts (such as viewcvs) and so on. I
> understand the latter may not be direly needed for Arch repos though.

I use tla-cvs-sync to sync zsh's Sourceforge CVS to Arch.  Once
arch.debian.org moves to its next home, I may switch that to cscvs
instead, as I suspect that it's more effective.

You can see two browsing scripts (viewarch and archzoom) at
http://arch.debian.org/ , though to be fair, viewarch there is a
little ancient.

> I'm fine though with anything that is solid, fast (SourceForge's CVS is
> everything but fast) and works well.

My comment was specifically intended with respect to the problem of
"subcontracting" TDB/QDBM support, wherein Arch could transform what
would be a massive headache under CVS or SVN into a piece of cake, due
to its distributed nature and advanced merging capabilities.  That's why
I mentioned a CVS->Arch gateway.  If you want a good SCM for general
use, I would replace CVS altogether with Arch.