On 8/21/05, Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the future of tla 1.x? Same for 2.0. Given that the main > contributors of GNU Arch--except Tom--are mostly people working now on > Bazaar-NG, I _guess_ Bazaar is the way of the future.
I apologize if this is a bit tactless and offtopic. After using Arch for a long time, and playing with other SCMs ocassionally, I am preparing to transition all my projects to GIT. I have been polishing the cvs import that git includes, and I have an extremely draft Arch importer I've been working on this weekend on a ferry trip across the Cook Strait. I will be polishing it through the week. This transition is tainted by the fact that patch-centric SCMs have disappointed me a bit. GIT (I am actually using cogito, which provides nice and easy shell wrappers) is patch-smart but not patch-centric, and the more I use it, the more apparent it is that is a good design decision. YMMV. Arch and other patch-centric SCMs are forever-diverging: there is nil support for identifying when two branches are identical. If a small group of developers work on their own branches, and exchange patches, most if the time you have the same tree, just different "record" of patches. GIT knows that instantaneously, and marks it as an un-branching: convergence. The trick of constantly hashing files and trees pays of handsomely. GIT doesn't natively do cherry-picking. It tries too hard to merge branches fully to be good at that. But you can use Stacked GIT (StGIT) which does cherry picking and many patch tricks on top of GIT. As git is doing the 'formal' SCM, StGIT stacks patches on top of a formally committed history. Patches in the stack are extremely malleable - a weirdly nice concept of being able to "edit the patch". One of git's GUIs, qgit, is poised to start doing cherrypicking, possibly based on StGIT. OTOH, Canonical people are doing some really interesting things with bzr and hct. hct is tied to their launchpad project (there was a good talk at Debconf5 about it); I think it's interesting, specially if you are looking for patch-centric tools. Canonical has a strong driver: they need strong SCM tools to manage Ubuntu efficiently. It's a bunch to watch, even if I don't agree with the technical decisions at the core of their SCMs. Sorry again for flogging a different scm. It's strange times for Arch users, as tla is orphan and baz will probably be orphaned by Canonical at some point not too far away. cheers, martin pd: send flames privately if you must. please ;-) _______________________________________________ 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/
