Re: Debian policy manual CVS address?
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:21:27 +0200, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> said:
> The reason why I asked was that I found it a bit strange to switch to
> arch,
When we switched to arch, none of these was around.
> which has log been superceded by the more recent DVCS programs
> (darcs, bzr, hr, git).
Firstly, I refuse to concede that arch has been "superceded". It
is a fine VCS, for my purposes, and is very scriptable, and I have
considerable scaffolding built around arch already.
Arguably, bzr is a regression; I consider arch to be
superior. darcs is also not better, since it original design goals were
to be less functional, but simpler, than arch. This might have changed,
but I have seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion. I have
not looked at Mercury or Monotone.
I have evaluated git around debconf; and at that point it did
not provide the functionality I have grown to like in arch. Git has
probably changed since then, but I don't have time to spend doing a
thorough analysis. Probably sometime this spring.
> Judging from the rapid growth of the git being used e.g. for Debian
> packaging projects, the git seems to be a good candidate.
This seems to be argumentum ad populum. Popularity is not
necessarily a convincing argument (Notate Bene: Windows XP is several
orders of magnitude more popular than Debian).
> The git command line UI is not necessarily bet yet, but the
Hmm.
> documentation and features really excel in many areas. It's more
> easier also to get git support than arch nowadays.
I have my fingers trained for arch already, and my fingers,
having a mind of their own, do not apparently need much in the way of
documentation.
Also, I have found I can hack whatever arch suport I think I need
myself. I do not have that option with git as yet.
manoj
--
Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs painting. Billy
Rose
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: