According to Matthieu Moy: > I'm not 100% happy with the way configuration work, but it's probably > the best way to scale up with arch.
It has inherent limitations: - changesets are generated per category so are not atomic across configs - branch is done at the category level not config which makes branching cumbersome So either you have large categories (# of files/dir.) but you lose the nice granularity of c--b--v or you have a large number of c--b--v in your config and it gets slow because a given commit/branch needs to iterate on all stored c--b--v. Unless there is a "baz commit" command that does it automatically for you, I don't see configs used by many. For trees such as the linux kernel or FreeBSD /usr/ports, I don't think it usable. > may want to have a look at the future Bazaar 2.0, AKA Bazaar-NG, who > will have dramatically improved performances (but you'll have to wait > a few months before being able to use it for production). While the c--b--v concept is nice and helps one organising a given archive, I think it is the main block to anything arch1 based so yes, bzr or mercurial are probably more suited as alternatives. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005 _______________________________________________ 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/
