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

Re: arch, svn, cvs

On 8/20/05, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > 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

To which I'd respond that Arch fills a very different niche, closer to DARCS.

But I'm leaving the Arch (tla/baz/bzr) boat too - patch-oriented SCMs
were fun, but very disappointing. There is a central design flaw in
pure patch tracking, and neither Arch nor DARCS do anything about it:
no matter how much you track patches merged, you need to be able to
identify convergence. GIT does this so well by being
identity-oriented, that you can do a ton of patch trading on top (via
email, StGIT, quilt, whatever) and things still make sense after
merging and remerging ad infinitum.

I'm running my Arch repos through this git-archimport-script:




Reply to: