[Gnu-arch-users] Re: fedora core 2 will include subversion (and not gnu arch)

[John Goerzen]

On 2004-02-22, Tom Lord <address@hidden> wrote:
> More interesting than a distro that _includes_ arch would be a distro
> _managed_by_ arch.

That would be nice, but there are a couple of really critical features
that I think are missing -- and which, in fact, make me periodically
consider going back to Subversion:

1. "cvs diff" and "cvs log" features on a per-file basis.  Show me what
changed in this file from patch-23 to patch-50, and not all the other
crap alongside it.  Also, show me only the log entries that touched this
file.

2. Performance.  On large projects, performance is absolutely abysmal,
both for checkins and other commands.  I often have runtimes in the
*minutes* for work on the Linux kernel, and that is on a fast box with a
local archive.  Some of that could be simple -- for instance, if I do a
"tla replay" followed by a "tla what-changed", it will go right back and
do the same thing replay did, which takes forever.  I don't know why it
is so much slower than Subversion, but it is.

3. Also nice to have, but not as critical: "cvs blame" :-)

> better idea.   Alas, the "value added" of UL compared to just naked
> Debian looks, so far, pretty slim.

I think the value of UL is "value subtracted" from naked Debian.  If
that makes any sense at all.  (And to this Debian developer, it
doesn't.)

-- John