From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Anderson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!] Date: 07 Jun 2003 18:09:46 -0700 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1055034587.1439.121.camel@lan1> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055034073 28658 80.91.224.249 (8 Jun 2003 01:01:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 01:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 08 03:01:10 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19OoXz-0007OK-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:00:35 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19OorH-000535-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:20:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19OoZ6-0002OT-8F for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:01:44 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OoYn-0002O6-Ml for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:01:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OoYm-0002NX-3I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:01:24 -0400 Original-Received: from pimout1-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.77]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19OoYl-0002NT-No for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:01:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-64-163-139-137.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.163.139.137])h5811LPg098208 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:01:22 -0400 Original-To: emacs X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-11) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14895 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14895 From: Robert Anderson To: Miles Bader Cc: arch Subject: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord! Date: 07 Jun 2003 17:28:04 -0700 On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 16:47, Miles Bader wrote: > Dicsussions of whether to switch to arch or subversion are not uncommon, and > what I've seen so far always manages to bring up `issues' with the various > revision control systems. I'd venture that a lot of such discussion as seen on various well-known discussion sites has often bordered on the inane, mostly from hastily drawn conclusions about a poorly understood system which does take some time to understand and appreciate (much like emacs, IMO). It's not always `it lost all my files!' For > instance in the case of arch, Tom Lord's original implementation is > apparently unusably slow in some cases On cygwin, yes, unusably so. No good solution for windows exists to my knowledge. Otherwise, the sh implementation: yes, slow, but not unusably, IMO. Unusably slow performance is probably user error. And the new C translation is aimed at (and getting) dramatic performance improvements. ; I guess there's alternative > implementation (in the works?) but that's still somewhat new (and so to be > treated with caution). Yes and no. The core commands have actually been extensively and systematically tested and were much more solid out of the gate than the original implementation (the orig impl. has since been fixed as well). Some other issues with arch that often come include > (1) the somewhat murky rules/conventions for designating source-controlled > files, They are defined by regexps. I don't think regexps can reasonably be considered "murky." and (2) the naming conventions, which reflect Tom Lord's somewhat > wacky and idiosyncratic tastes, and put some people off. This is a common misunderstanding. "Naming conventions" in arch are _user-defined_. You can use whatever you like. Tom uses some idiosyncratic stuff in _his_ source trees, it is true. But you don't have to in your own. > Now all these things will eventually be worked out -- but that's the point: > arch is not yet a stable system, it's still undergoing change. I don't see how you can say that it is not stable. The core of the system has been stable for a long time. I don't see how performance improvements can be considered "instability." The only thing that needs to be worked out about those other things is users' understanding of them. > I certainly am no expert on any of these systems, and am relying on the > `buzz' for my info -- but I think in this case that's proper thing to do. Well frankly the buzz borders on the inane quite often, and the propagation of disinformation - like your two points about "naming conventions" - is really frustrating for people who know better. If I were to dismiss emacs out of hand because there are "too many parentheses", I don't think you would respond by removing lisp as an extension language or by conceding that emacs isn't usable yet. You would state your good reasons for using lisp as an extension language, and stick to your guns that you will not compromise a good design decision because I am uneducated about lisp. This is how many who have been around arch for awhile feel at this point when listening to the aforementioned "buzz." > [another thing about arch I've wondered about is the use of FTP as a remote > protocol -- though I have no idea whether it's easy/practical to use > something else instead. For better or for worse, ftp access is problematical > in many cases (including my own!); subversion's standard use of http is much > more practical.] Are ftp, http, webdav, ssh, and freenet sufficient? Because arch does them all (freenet is contrib code). > > I'm also curious what you mean by "well supported." I can't think of a > > free software project in existence that has a more dedicated maintainer > > than arch does. > > Stefan gave a good answer to this. See my response. Most of said tools do already exist. Bob