* martin f. krafft: > also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.2146 +0200]: >> The list is somewhat outdated, and it doesn't reflect some things >> I've learnt since I wrote that pamphlet. > > If I find the time, I will contribute my comments to help get the > page up to date. Feel free to prod me in a couple of weeks in case > I forgot.
Okay. >> Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint: >> >> <http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot> > > Well written, but does it contribute to our discussion here? Arch > and Baz can both be used centrally, and with a group of committers. > It might not scale as well right now, but efforts in the direction > of automated patch integration systems promise to close this gap. > See for instance the patch queue manager project[0]. > > 0. http://web.verbum.org/arch-pqm/ arch-pqm still requires that people publish their own repositories. This is often a challenge for people behind firewalls. If arch-pqm took advantage of the GNU arch capabilities and accepted signed changesets instead of merge requests, things would be quite different. Such an option exists for darcs, but I haven't used it. It still doesn't provide the satisfaction of immediate feedback, I fear. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
