2005/10/18, Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1) Teach a beginner how to use baz or tla. See how long it takes. > 2) Run "baz status" in a large tree. See how long it takes. > > In both cases, most other modern RCS beat GNU Arch by an order of > magnitude. This doesn't remove the numerous qualities of Arch, but > it's just that we know it's possible to do better.
Sure, tla/arch is full of these stupid little implementation problems, though they're not bad enough in practice to put much urgency in my search for a replacement[*]. I've love a modern RCS that takes the good points of arch and fixes the problems, a net improvement. But that's not what I find when I look around; I find a bunch of RCSs that improve on some of tla's annoying points -- and add stupid boners of their own (like git's creaky rename resolution strategy). [*] However I do not use tla on truly large source trees like the kernel or gcc -- Emacs is the biggest. For really large trees I use diff/patch. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
