On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 00:04 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On 8/20/05, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. for the record, to avoid other folk getting confused - bzr isn't a 'patch orientated SCM'. bzr's design incorporates elements from all of the VCS systems around when the project was started (and updated since then) - its not derived from GNU Arch any more or less than its derived from monotone or subversion. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part