Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!]

[Juanma Barranquero <jmbarranquero@laley.wke.es>]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:37:59 -0400
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu> wrote:

> It is a problem because you can't look inside with the usual tools,
> so you end up locked with a specific set of tools and you have to
> use them to get anything done.

Yes, but that's ameliorated if the format is well documented. And, I'd
really hope if we do switch to another system, it'll be one more stable
than CVS :)

> And when there's a bug, it can end
> up pretty disastrous (basically, the big-binary-blob implements
> something like a file-system, so a bug is like a bug in your kernel
> that can trash your entire file system).

Sure. Backups are always needed.

> It's not unbearable, but saying that "Subversion is just a better CVS"
> is just silly.  The implementation of Subversion is far more radical than
> the one of OpenCM, Arch, and Meta-CVS (which is why it's taking so long,
> BTW, especially compared to single-man efforts such as Arch or
> Meta-CVS).

I know. But I'm not talking about implementation. Nowhere in this thread
I've done so. Subversion is a better CVS, from the user's POV. I'd like
to use a program with a similar mindset, user-wise, than CVS. BitKeeper,
for what I've heard, is vastly different, and I think arch too.

                                                                Juanma