Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: DARCS

[Ethan Benson]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 05:25:39PM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 15:38, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> > Ethan Benson <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > {arch} and .arch-ids are no worse then CVS and SVN and BitKeeper all
> > > over the place.  arch is better even since .arch-ids is hidden from
> > > standard lists, and never bothers greps and typical finds.
> > >
> > > the only annoyance for me is the pristine trees in {arch} which
> > > screw up rgrep.  but ive heard tom say he wanted to kill pristine
> > > trees anyway, so that may well solve itself.
> > 
> > I agree, it's mostly the pristine trees that have caught me out.
> > .arch-ids annoy me because they're the wrong way to do explicit tags;
> 
> You've made this assertion repeatedly without substantiating it.  What
> is "wrong" about it?

nothing is wrong with it.  CVS isn't much different, the only
difference with CVS is you have a single file in each CVS directory
(Entries) which holds the `tags' for that directory's contents, rather
then lots of files.  not a big deal.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

pgpYGRJoBFQpB.pgp
Description: PGP signature