On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:33:49PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: > Hi, there are several archive formats out there that > are or being planned to be covered by the present and > future versions of Arch. While there are some > annoyances of the current Arch 1/baz format (not "user > friendly", problem on MS Windows systems), Arch 2.0 > and bzr have their own still evolving formats. > > I wonder what are the advantages and the disadvantages > of the new Arch 2.0 format vs. the bzr format?
Arch 2.0 looks like is DOA, so to compare against arch... * Collapsed filesystem storage - As you mentioned above, it caused a bit of a problem with certain limited filesystems. This turns out to be a problem for larger projects that are cross-platform (apache and python come to mind quickly) * Collapsed namespace - No categories, versions or archives. A location is a branch, a branch is named according to its location (currently) --- Disadvantages: * bzr (aka bazaar 2.x) currently suffers from the same history buildup problems that bazaar and arch do. > And, is there any possibility that a new Arch can > adapt the git format as is, so Arch can directly > operate on git repositories? -- James Blackwell | Life is made of the stuff that hasn't killed Tell someone a joke! | you yet. - yours truly ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400 _______________________________________________ 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/
