Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I trust the design of Arch, as it being rock-solid.
>
> Well, thank you. It has a few sharp corners but, if it is not
> too immodest, I basically agree.
I think arch has some non-optimal / silly features that only became
obvious in retrospect[*], but for me about 90% of the annoyance is due
to the current implementation ("Awk and shell scripts, in C! Let's not
optimize... "), not the basic architecture.
[*] E.g. patch logs consume space too damn fast; naming scheme can be
clunky; some kind of "more anonymous" / temporary / layered
repository would be nice -- I don't always want to name stuff.
My sense is that git is moving in the right direction in general,
but the lack of real rename support makes me nervous, as I've really
enjoyed the ability to merge changes despite renaming in the target
branch (I've seen Linus and company's arguments as to why their
method -- figuring out renames after the fact -- is "better", but
they read like an apologia).
-miles
--
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're
just making him madder and madder." -- Homer Simpson
_______________________________________________
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/
