I was using BK for a long time, and wanted to come clean, become a good FLOSS citizen and use darcs or arch...
Nah. :) BK suddenly hiccuped on windows -- I fixed it, it really needed ssh-agent and seemless login -- bit otherwise nothing beats its speed and help system... WIndows-linux interoperability is amazing for bk. Darcs cares about it, to, UNison does it, SVN does it, and any SCM which want to take root wants to do it. But meanwhile, for the few days it took me to fix BK, I tried arch and darcs. To the point where I spent these two days compiling tla on MSFU and getting it right. Now I'm a bit amazed as to why people bother with those interminable names in tla? In star-merge, you have to say things like tla star-merge <email>--<archname>/c--b--v which takes forever. The thing gets stuff into dirs with suffixes like --base-0 which I go and cut right away, as it doesn't stay that for long, becoming a --patch-#! And naming, do you really have to fix all the regexps before tla will commit? For whatever reason, setting untagged-source junk didn't work for me -- all those untagged files still were reported by tree-lint as looking like source but not being it! Overall, in a distributed mode, you'd have to keep a copy of merge-dir WC from a remote archive, and a local tagged archive and _its_ WC, and merge from the latter WC into the former and then commit into the remote archive to sync. Now, if I use a laptop and simply want two full repos with all histories on both and sync them when I get a chance to, e.g. if I work on a big screen at home and on my laptop in a cafe, -- why do I need the second layer? What is it that tla enables through such two layers that darcs and bk don't? Cheers, Alexy _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
