Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hmm. an alternative to a new maintainer. Hire your manager.

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > So if you define `learning to use a VCS' as `branch, commit, send
> > patch', I suspect the time is equal for both tla, darcs and CVS.
> 
> The steps to do that with tla are:
> 
> 1) set up an archive. Understand why the name of your archive must
>    contain a "@"
> 
> < if you don't set up a revision library, then you get awfull
> performances >
> 
> 2) tla tag. Learn the Arch namespace, understand why your branch name
>    must contain a category, a branch, a version, ...
> 
> 3) tla get
> 
> 4) tla commit
> 
> With, say, bzr, you do
> 
> bzr branch http://host.com/path/to/project
> cd project
> <hack hack hack>
> bzr commit

To translate this into a fair comparison with your description of tla:

> bzr branch http://host.com/path/to/project

Understand the URL format spec, the HTTP protocol, the apache web
server, and the TCP protocol. Install Debian and apache. Configure
mod_auth_whatever.

> cd project

Understand the unix filesystem. Implement a unix kernel.

> <hack hack hack>

Learn how to code.

Estimated time required: ~10-15 years.

I haven't seen such a ridiculous comparison since the last time
somebody was playing partisan power games about revision control
systems. It was clearly deliberately engineered to be as favourable as
possible to one - pure political noise. This is exactly the sort of
crap I was talking about earlier.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature