From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:02:45 -0800 From: Christopher Nielsen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] revision control Message-ID: <20060124000245.GP80710@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <43D5644C.8000909@lanl.gov> <20060123233720.GP25435@augusta.math.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060123233720.GP25435@augusta.math.psu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4956b32-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:37:20PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > > I like Subversion; it's a decent tool and has a textual on-disk > representation reminescent of RCS files. It appears to be, ``CVS done > right.'' Sure, some things are suboptimal, but on the whole, it's > pleasant enough to work with. But it requires the Apache runtime, > which I guess would be non-trivial to port (because it's big and > requires more patience than I have). My last full-time tech job, I worked at the company that funds the development of Subversion by employing the core developers. Everyone knew I really liked Plan 9, and there was talk then about portin the Apache Runtime to Plan 9. It didn't happen mostly because I didn't have time; I was too busy on the ops side to do much dev. You get Apache for free if you port APR; I'm not sure if that's good or bad. -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin