[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bzr
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: bzr |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:24:15 GMT |
as an example of the GNU system, and as a template for how
GNU packages are written. Does that sound like a fair summary?
I'm afraid I don't really understand the distinction you're drawing.
At any rate, GNU packages are (and always have been) developed in more
than one way. This is a good thing. In the case at hand, the added
complications of dVC are not worth the benefits for all projects. One
technical benefit of bzr (as far as I know) is that it can be used as a
*non*-distributed VC. Or maybe you guys consider that a drawback, I
don't know ... :).
k
- bzr, Reuben Thomas, 2011/04/26
- Re: bzr, Karl Berry, 2011/04/26
- Re: bzr, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/27
- Re: bzr, Karl Berry, 2011/04/27
- Re: bzr, Reuben Thomas, 2011/04/27
- Re: bzr,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: bzr, Reuben Thomas, 2011/04/27
- Re: bzr, Reuben Thomas, 2011/04/29