On 25-Mar-04, at 12:25 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
It's definitely not a magic tool that makes bad code good and
conflicting patches happy. It solves other problems, though.
I don't think anything mentioned in this thread so far would be an
enormous improvement over what we have now. However, I
Dustin Sallings wrote:
On Mar 24, 2004, at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
Not here. You want me to trust some bit of code (with absolutely zero
understanding of the source text it's hacking on) to figure out how to
resolve conflicting patches? That sounds like a recipe for big-time
unhappiness.
The
Neil Conway said:
I don't think anything mentioned in this thread so far would be an
enormous improvement over what we have now. However, I am still open to
trying Arch or SVN: in the long run, I think the productivity gain
from even an incremental improvement in the development toolset is
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:05:05AM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
The difference here is that instead of submitting a patch for review,
which is then frozen, the branch owner can (and that means some will, no
matter what your intentions are) keep modifying the branch during the
review process,
Dustin Sallings wrote:
You can use distributed revision control systems as centralized
systems, but not vice-versa.
Not true, the other way around exists, that is what svk does.
As far as understanding the simplicity of arch (if you wanted to
understand the problems it solves and
On Mar 25, 2004, at 5:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
The difference here is that instead of submitting a patch for review,
which is then frozen, the branch owner can (and that means some will,
no matter what your intentions are) keep modifying the branch during
the review process, other than just
On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:21, Neil Conway wrote:
I think the lack of good Win32 support (unless rectified before the
release of 7.5) is a pretty major problem with Arch -- that alone
might be sufficient to prevent us from adopting it.
I don't do Windows, but my understanding is that tla is as well
On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:22, Magnus Naeslund(t) wrote:
You can use distributed revision control systems as centralized
systems, but not vice-versa.
Not true, the other way around exists, that is what svk does.
From its description, svk sounds like a completely different system:
``svk is a
On 25-Mar-04, at 3:03 PM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
I don't do Windows, but my understanding is that tla is as well
supported on Windows as postgres is.
David Wheeler disagrees:
A serious weakness of arch is that it doesn't work well on
Windows-based systems, and it's not clear if that will ever
quote who=Dustin Sallings
On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:21, Neil Conway wrote:
I think the lack of good Win32 support (unless rectified before the
release of 7.5) is a pretty major problem with Arch -- that alone
might be sufficient to prevent us from adopting it.
I don't do Windows, but my
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:03:03 -0400 (AST)
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
Which brings me to another question .. has anybody considered using
subversion instead of CVS ?
Why? not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't
On Mar 24, 2004, at 7:29, Frank Wiles wrote:
[cool feature list]
Arch has all of that except for the checking out part of a directory
thing (would you really just check out the backend, submit a change,
and not build and test it?).
Additionally:
* Repositories can be easily replicated so
Dustin Sallings wrote:
On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:45, David Garamond wrote:
So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A
real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-)
Since it's illegal for anyone who uses Bitkeeper's free license to
contribute to another project, does anyone know if there
On Mar 24, 2004, at 13:22, David Garamond wrote:
From what I read here and there, BitKeeper excels primarily in merging
(good merging is apparently a very complex and hard problem) and GUI
stuffs.
There's not a lot of GUI in arch, but star-merge is fairly incredible.
This is how tla (the
It does have some downsides that I have found, most notibly that the
size of your sources you have in your working copy are essentially
doubled. There is a copy in your .svn directory that allows the
offline status, diff, and revert commands to work.
What's needed is a good window
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
What's needed is a good window client like WinCVS, however...
Chris
There is a number of those, our shop uses (and makes programs for) both
windows and unix (and might soon use mac's aswell), so it's very
important that there exists a good client for each.
On Mar 24, 2004, at 18:22, Magnus Naeslund(t) wrote:
The new buzz is distributed versioning systems these days, but i
question if that is called for in the vast majority of projects out
there.
You can use distributed revision control systems as centralized
systems, but not vice-versa.
But
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 06:03 pm, Dustin Sallings wrote:
There's not a lot of GUI in arch, but star-merge is fairly incredible.
This is how tla (the main arch implementation) itself is developed.
Lots of branches in lots of archives by lots of people.
I would guess that better
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would guess that better merging might be a real motivation for
people. If a patch that takes a month to develop can still apply
cleanly despite significant code drift in the interrem, I could see
that as a real motivating factor.
Not here. You
On Mar 24, 2004, at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
Not here. You want me to trust some bit of code (with absolutely zero
understanding of the source text it's hacking on) to figure out how to
resolve conflicting patches? That sounds like a recipe for big-time
unhappiness.
The idea is that it's the
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
Which brings me to another question .. has anybody considered using
subversion instead of CVS ?
Why? not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't broken, but what
advantages does subversion give us over what we already have?
Marc
21 matches
Mail list logo
