Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:22:13 +0800 From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Richard Coleman" <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious about SCM choice Message-ID: <d763ac660806290022v2832453le4b71b0927bc8a8e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <486702D9.2060204@criticalmagic.com> References: <E2C84A13-15E7-4BFE-B44F-A4C27966188C@cyberlifelabs.com> <48647AAD.5040909@FreeBSD.org> <7D28014A-C3FB-4944-95FC-15F299F9AF37@cyberlifelabs.com> <486702D9.2060204@criticalmagic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/6/29 Richard Coleman <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com>: > The only thing really lacking is a good way to handle local code. The old > method of using CVS_LOCAL_BRANCH_NUM is very fragile. How is everyone > managing their local code now with the conversion to subversion? This is > the only place I miss using hg or bzr. svk? I've heard it gets confused by the freebsd svn repo if you use a partial tree so I haven't tried yet but I've been tinkering with it for another project. It seems to work alright. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660806290022v2832453le4b71b0927bc8a8e>