Hello, I looked a bit more into it, and found several revision systems, one of them Subversion. The most important part is how good the program is in merging branches, because that's the most work. Normal diff can't handle it very well, CVS makes it only easier to fix it manually from what I saw of it, so that is what the main advantages of Subversion and Arch should be, easy merging. After reading some docs it seems that Arch is harder to setup and handle, but probably better, and Subversion much easier to use, but not really distributed. Several sites said that Bitkeeper is the best, only it has a not too nice license and isn't open source. I think it's time to find other patch makers, and see how far we can come with plain diffs and CVS first. Using Arch would probably make it easier to handle multiple branches, but may also scare away potential patch makers (meaning that they probably will use diffs and that someone else must apply them to an Arch branch). Subversion has the advantage that it resembles CVS much more, so it's easier to start with. Greetings, Indan ------------------------------------------------------------------ HTTPS patch: http://www.xs4all.nl/~dorinek/dillo/dillo-ssl.diff.gz ------------------------------------------------------------------