Re: On a free repacker

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2004@gmx.net>]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> 
>>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
>>Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....
> 
> 
> I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
> I don't think I'll look into it yet).
> 
> All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as subversion
> and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't use BK.
> And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me.

Oh, that is interesting. I think we agree that CVS is not simple to use.
But I'm interested in how subversion can be simpler than bitkeeper.

# bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
and you have a directory "project"
# cd project
# ./configure; make; make install
for updates:
# cd project
# bk pull
some projects may have a default of source not checked out, do it now
# bk -r get

Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes
my life simpler.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel