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

Re: arch, svn, cvs

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 00:04 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> 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.

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.


GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

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

Reply to: