Re: arch, svn, cvs
* Marc Haber:
> Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
The list is somewhat outdated, and it doesn't reflect some things I've
learnt since I wrote that pamphlet.
Regarding the Emacs vs VIM comment: I use both, and don't feel as
restricted in either of them as I do when I use the wrong VC system.
I think that this is part of the problem with current VC systems: To
some extent, each of them forces a particular model on you, and in
some cases, it's not even clear what this model looks like.
Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint:
<http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot>
Of course, it's a pretty lame excuse for not implementing repository
replication, but I think he's right that for most free software
projects, a mainline tree which is directly updated by contributors is
preferable.
Reply to: