On Saturday 05 November 2005 19:00, Nir Soffer wrote: > On 5 Nov, 2005, at 14:33, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > 1. It is not portable to Win32, and porting it there is not a priority > > of its > > main developer. > > Who cares? >
I do. I want my software to be as portable to Win32 as possible, and that people would be able to build it there and also possibly contribute there. Iron bugs, etc. Python is portable to Win32, so we should also use a Win32-compatible version control system. > > 2. It is no longer maintained and will be replaced by GNU Arch 2.0. > > It is, most of the work done on http://bazaar.canonical.com/. I'm not > sure 2.0 will replace tla, maybe bzr - bazaar-ng - which new system > written in Python. I see. > > > 3. Several common operations in it require a great deal of commands. > > tla is sometimes a version control framework, and you have to add some > scripts to automate your work, but generally its easy to use for daily > tasks. I see. > > > 4. It has some confusing commands: "tla mv" does one thing and "tla > > move" does > > something else. > > So? So I can enter "tla mv" instead of "tla move" and get something else. Cognitively "mv" and "move" are the same, yet in tla they do different things. Plus, Mikhael Goikhman also entered the wrong command of this when he demonstrated tla to Israel.PM at his presentation about version control. So if a fire has caught the firs, what will the moss on the wall say? > > > 5. A checkout requires checking out the entire history. (if the > > history is > > very large - it becomes a problem). > > You get a project only once, then its cached in your revision library. > Yes, but multiply it by the number of developers, and the amount of growing history. > > Subversion ( http://subversion.tigris.org/ ) has none of these > > deficiencies > > and is also very slick, very fast, algorithmically-sane, feels > > wonderful to > > use, etc. You can distribute it using svk. > > Check this: http://wiki.gnuarch.org/SubVersionAndCvsComparison > Hah! This is a heavily biased comparison by the Arch folks. There are others: * http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/ * http://www.szabgab.com/subversion_vs_xyz.html * http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html * http://www.red-bean.com/sussman/svn-anti-fud.html I forgot to note that Subversion is very well documented, while documentation for Arch is incredibly scarce. Since larch came out, the syntax of operation of Arch was modified, and as a result, some existing documentation is no longer up-to-date. > > So I recommend using Subversion instead. Whatever we choose to use, > > CVS should > > be avoided like the plague - it is incredibly Evil. > > I don't think Gui want to use any rcs :-) > It's "Guy" not "Gui". And he and everyone else should use a VCS. You should use a VCS for anything that undergoes a few revisions. Guy, anything you can say to your defense? Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ 95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.
