[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Repository for RefTeX

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Repository for RefTeX
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:49:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> So, I've played a bit with Arch; setting up repositories and working
> dirs, branching, committing, merging.  The start was a little bumpy
> due to mistakes I made out of unfamiliarity with the tool.  That
> might not had been a problem, but some error messages weren't really
> enlightening (one displayed some C code and the other one told me
> that I could not merge unrelated trees when trying to merge stuff
> from the trunk to a branch).  I also tried DVC and my impression is
> that in day-to-day use (i.e. mostly committing changes) there won't
> be much of a difference regarding the amount of effort to get work
> done between CVS and Arch.  One real advantage of Arch is support
> for merging changes between different repositories which would be
> useful for synchronizing the RefTeX files in the Emacs and RefTeX
> repositories.  However, this will probably not be done very often
> and all the differences between CVS and Arch both on a conceptual
> and on a handling level will probably create more friction than we
> would gain from the better merge support.  And, of course, there is
> the problem of Arch not being supported on all platforms we'd wish
> it was.  So consequently I'd opt for CVS.

As a merge tool, jit might also come in handy.  On the other hand, I
doubt that we'll need to worry all too much about merges: it is not
like there happens much with the RefTeX in Emacs' CVS.

> Once we all agree on that we can start setting up the repository and
> ask Savannah admins to copy RefTeX files from the Emacs repository
> over to RefTeX's own.  So, does anybody else have reservations
> regarding CVS as the version control system for RefTeX?

Moving files is a problem, so we should compare the organisation of
standalone RefTeX and the Emacs subpart before telling Savannah
hackers where to move things.

I think that actually we should move AUCTeX to Subversion at some
point of time: there will be reorganisations necessary when we are
moving style files to directories where the extension of the
corresponding TeX file gets heeded.

It is not that one can't do this sort of thing with CVS, but the
results are less than pretty.  However, I don't think that Subversion
is an option at the current point of time, so just putting both RefTeX
and AUCTeX under CVS at the moment seems like the least problematic

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]