[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Rationale for `revc' and `bzr'
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Rationale for `revc' and `bzr' |
Date: |
Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:10:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.10i |
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 13:25:31 +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> Hi,
>
> address@hidden (James Blackwell) writes:
>
> > Anybody that considers continuing the tla and/or baz code base should bear
> > in mind that the two teams that were working on the codebases decided to
> > go for full rewrites.
>
> Well, anybody looking for a version control system should bear in mind
> that there have been so many GNU Arch enthusiasts, and so many
> developers eager to contribute to it during years, that it /can't/ be a
> bad VCS. Or am I missing something? ;-)
>
> To me it looks like Monotone and especially GIT exacerbated the
> competition among VCS projects, and also paved the way for a new,
> better, storage model. I have the impression that _these_ are the main
> reasons for the two full rewrites.
>
> Additionally, I don't think a better storage model necessarily makes a
> better VCS.
It's not (just) a storage model. It is a better model for the relation
between files and revisions.
--
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] The future of GNU Arch users, Andrew Suffield, 2005/09/08
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] The future of GNU Arch users, John A Meinel, 2005/09/09