On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:00:23PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:05:32PM +0200, Artis Rozentals wrote: > > It's different, but so is Ion. :) > > SVN sounds much more complicated to me, like the problem with > > logfiles, that just doesn't seem right. > > I don't know about being different, but it is like they made > a version management library but forgot to add a higher-level UI. > Too many manual tasks for very basic operations.
There's been a good deal of discussion of this topic on the Arch mailing list. I'd bet that at least one interactive CLI front-end will be available within six months. There are already a couple of GUIs floating around, if you happen to like that sort of thing. Also, the tla-1.1 syntax is somewhat cleaner than tla-1.0. > I also don't like > being fed a version and branch naming scheme. Of course the tutorial > at <http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/tutorial/arch.html> could > just be bad. The naming scheme does serve at least one purpose: it allows all categories/branches/versions/revisions to be easily sorted. Paul
