This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: juggling patches...
Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 12:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:03:23AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>>> Thats cool. The offer remains open. arch would be great for this (as it
>>> addresses all the points above :}), but I simply don't have time to port
>>> it properly to cygwin.
>> "arch"? As in Tom Lord's arch? *Shudder*
> Is the shudder over Tom, or arch ? If Tom, then I can understand ;]. If
> arch itself - have you tried a recent version? I've found arch to be
> incredibly useful, making some of the things I'd fought with CVS to make
> happen trivial. (Notably disconnected work and local branches).
Disconnected work becomes less of a fight if you rsync the repository to
your local box, and use shell aliases to pass appropriate -d options. It's
not totally transparent, but it works well.
>> Maybe we should see if bitkeeper will donate some code to us. After all
>> they use cygwin for some of their stuff. Seems only fair.
> Could be. Mind you, I can't use bitkeeper (and don't want to). Hopefully
> I won't start an incessant discussion if I mention that a) the licence
> prevents me using it ( I've a side-project called barch, which is a C++
> implementation of the arch logic) and b) the compulsory
> public-visibility for 'free' use of it really sticks in my craw.
Also can't and don't want to. I'm just beginning to look around in the cvs
code, ditto the feelings about compulsory public-visibility.