[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?
From: |
Brian May |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate? |
Date: |
Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:38:15 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
>>>>> "David" == David A Wheeler <address@hidden> writes:
David> There are some things I didn't see:
David> * Is anyone currently working on automated caching?
For what purpose?
There is currently mirrors which serves:
* backups.
* faster access.
* off line access, eg. laptop computers.
There is also revision libraries (and pristine trees) which serves:
* faster speed for some operations.
I suspect when you ask you question, you consider these to deficient,
but in what way?
David> * Is it even slightly plausible to change the default
David> filename/tagname conventions so arch will
edit {arch}/=tagging-method ?
David> work more easily with common tools (e.g., vi/vim, more, csh,
David> bash, Windows (it doesn't handle long names well))?
David> Conventions are so arbitrary, yet the ones arch uses
David> seem designed to cause unnecessary problems.
Not sure what problems you are referring to here?
Possibly I have misunderstood what you are referring to.
David> * Is there any reason that "mv" and "move" couldn't be the
David> same thing (and let mv-id or an mv flag be the id mover)?
Why do you see this as being an issue? Personally I don't care either
way.
David> * Has anyone thought about the "signing of signing" issue
David> (A signs A's code, B accepts it, C accepts B's, and we
David> have a chain of signatures from all 3 showing the transition)?
David> Centralized systems don't need this as much, but distributed
David> systems need more if you're going to show where code came from.
I don't think you need a chain of signatures, all you would need is to
support multiple signatures. That has been debated in the past, read
the archives ;-).
David> * Is there an intent to fix the remaining problems in the
David> native Windows port (e.g., symlinks, newline oddities)?
I believe people are working on the Windows port, see the mailing list
archives, I haven't read them in detail.
David> Also - has anyone tried to compare BitKeeper and Arch in
David> detail? For example, BitKeeper claims its 3-way merge is
David> better than anyone's, and Monotone claims its 3-way merge
David> is better than Arch's, but I'd love to see a more detailed
David> comparison. I did find some specific information on
David> BitKeeper, for example:
David> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20030323_210.txt
See <URL:http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/>.
BitKeeper does come with a fancy GUI for merging, I haven't used it
enough to come to any conclusion if it helps or not. As I am in the
process of contributing changes to Arch, I suspect I wouldn't be
eligible for the free software license of BitKeeper anymore either, so
I can't easily check.
--
Brian May <address@hidden>
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Andrew Suffield, 2004/03/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/03/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?,
Brian May <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Caching (was: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?), Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Caching (was: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?), Jan Hudec, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Caching (was: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?), Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Caching (was: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?), Jan Hudec, 2004/03/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Caching (was: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?), Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Caching, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/15
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Charles Duffy, 2004/03/08
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David MENTRE, 2004/03/10