On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:43:47PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > 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.
git is also my 'next best' choice, in the event that (as appears to be happening) arch 1 gets abandoned and arch 2 doesn't get anywhere. It's incomplete and lacking various things arch can do, but this appears fixable and I'll fix it myself if I have to. Unlike most everything else, where it doesn't appear fixable. > 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. Unfortunately there do not presently exist any hashing algorithms which permit this to be particularly secure. I believe this can be fixed in a higher layer, but it's a blasted nuisance. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
