[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS]
From: |
David Brown |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS] |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:05:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:45:00AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> "Trying to solve problems" glosses over the question of _which_
> problems and _why_those_ problems. I don't see how "trying to solve
> a problem" rules out the presence of ego.
I think this really explains why the revision control projects out there
are so radically different. Each is looking at a fairly different set
of problems to be solved, and focusing their efforts/design on those
problems.
- Subversion seems to be CVS users who are annoyed by some of the major
problems with CVS. They seem to be glossing over some other
significant issues, such as merging.
- OpenCM seems to be focusing primarily upon security. They also want
distributed development, but give security higher priority. None of
the distributed development has been implemented. They have put some
work into merging. They do keep track of merge history, and most
repeated merges do work. It doesn't have the flexibility of replay,
though.
One significant difference between OpenCM and Arch. OpenCM has global
archive and version identifiers, however they are large random
strings. This is certainly easy to do, but it can be very difficult
to track down what a merge is actually against.
- Arch seems to be designed around Tom's careful analysis of what tools
are needed for actualy development. I think his model fits quite
well. Analyzing the large commercial project at work, I can see arch
as the only one that would fit the development model we use.
Currently we use Perforce, but not as much because Perforce handles
these problems well, but because it is kind of a free-for-all system.
I haven't looked at the other projects, though. Arch has certainly
gotten to the point of doing what I need. With 'tla', the
implementation also performs quite well.
- [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Robert Collins, 2003/09/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS],
David Brown <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Zack Brown, 2003/09/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [Fwd: SourceForge.net Service Update: CVS], Tom Lord, 2003/09/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why so many version control projects?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Tom Lord, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Miles Bader, 2003/09/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] engineering ethics and rhetoric in the modern age, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24