[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Version control systems for debian devlopment

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,
 - 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

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...

-- 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

secure email with gpg                         http://fortytwo.ch/gpg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: