On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 05:38, Brian May wrote: > I have tried arch, and my main concern is that it seems to > have a lot of hidden bugs. One bug (which is fixed now) was > that a parameter passed to a sh script was wrong, which resulted > in this shell script being called recursively indefinitely. (I really > do not think this should not have been written in shell scripts...) arch ... hmmm. I tried it, once, but stopped quickly as I saw that - it didn't handle filenames with spaces, and it was a long discussion whether this should be considered a bug[1] (this might be fixed now, dunno) - it was *very* slow to get the initial repository when I wanted to check out the devel version of arch itself. - it is written (partly) in shell (shudder!) - it produced *tons* of output on every operation, using '*' as indentation marker (while make uses '***' as error marker. Hmmm.) explanation: emacs can cope well with such output. In other words: the distributed repository and the fancy merge operations are really great, but the arch system to me feels just really 'wrong'. On version mgmt systems: subversion: I didn't try it - needing to set up a webdav server made me avoid it so far. cvs: has it's obvious weeknesses, but it's what I use... bitkeeper: non-free, the bit I saw was basically assuming a web browser as primary ui, which is just not the way I'm working. So now there's another project sitting on my computer that will probably never get anywhere... cheers -- vbi [1] being an Unix person, I would never have spaces in filenames, so this bug would not concern me. But it showed an attitude with the arch developers which didn't let me think they'd ever produce a very reliable system -- secure email with gpg http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part