Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:50 PM, Miles Bader wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 12:41:05PM -0700, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
> >  Arch lets me cache if I understand correctly. My objection is more
> > philosophical:
> >
> >   The build source should match some set of files on the repository.
> >
> >  (pretend you don't trust patch. In that case, you'd really like a 
> > snapshot
> > of HEAD to always be stored somewhere...)
>
> Heh, I think you've got this exactly backwards: it's subversion that 
> should
> make you very nervous as it stores everything in a giant opaque binary 
> blob;
> if something goes wrong, you'd better cross your fingers.

 You're right, that's one of the minuses of subversion.

 Really, we haven't made any decision because:

  1. I would never use branches, but would use the arch features. So I 
see no reason to
switch if its to svn.

  2. Mike would use branches, would use the arch features, but is even 
farther
behind me in grokking arch, whereas svn would be easy to move to.

  Neither svn or arch have a GUI tool we can easily use on Mac OS X 
Cocoa that compares to CVL.

  So we're still in the "CVS sucks, but does it suck enough to be worth 
switching" state.

  Hence the "might use subversion" above. We might just stick with CVS 
until tla 1.4 :-)

 Pierce