Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

> > behind me in grokking arch, whereas svn would be easy to move to.
> >
> >   Neither svn or arch have a GUI tool we can easily use on Mac OS X
> > Cocoa that compares to CVL.
> >
> >   So we're still in the "CVS sucks, but does it suck enough to be 
> > worth
> > switching" state.
> >
> >   Hence the "might use subversion" above. We might just stick with CVS
> > until tla 1.4 :-)
>
> I suppose if you're happy enough for the time being with CVS, that's 
> not all
> that bad a plan -- you can switch when something makes you go `Wow!', 
> or at
> least when the issues have had a bit more time to percolate in your 
> brain.

  Yeah. My current plan is actually to play with arch in the dumb and 
simple
mode for a bit. (one archive, update and commit to that archive, done.) 
Half my problem I realized was that I trying to use every feature of 
arch, ALL AT THE SAME TIME! No wonder I was getting snowed.

  Really, if you dumb an archive on a file server somewhere, and have 
everyone share it, the model isn't that different from CVS.

> Be wary of the `oooooooh, shiny' reflex though: a nice GUI tool is, 
> well,
> nice, but a lot less important than a robust and well-designed 
> infrastructure
> -- it's much easier to switch front-ends (should someone write a new 
> whizzy
> one that you like) than to convert all your repository data when you 
> later
> realize you picked the wrong thing!

  To be honest, all I ever use a GUI tool for is to cherry pick changes 
I'm ready to checkin, which arch would make less of an issue, or to 
double check the other engineers changes before I grab them, which arch 
would also make less of an issue.

 Pierce