From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!] Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:10:27 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030611085935.51D6.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> References: <20030610165211.911A.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> <20030610201617.GA26760@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055315246 14770 80.91.224.249 (11 Jun 2003 07:07:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:07:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 11 09:07:24 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 19Pzhc-0003q6-00 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:07:24 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19Q02U-0006Vb-00 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:28:58 +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 19Pzjv-0007zO-7Z for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:09:47 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19PzjY-0007iK-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:09:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19PzjX-0007gR-3x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:09:23 -0400 Original-Received: from laley-actualidad.es ([195.53.61.17] helo=haya.laley.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19PzjU-0007aU-Ot; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:09:20 -0400 Original-Received: from idefix.laley.net (correo.wke.es [172.17.220.16]) by haya.laley.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27214; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:07:07 +0200 Original-Received: from [172.17.221.23] (jsredondo.wk.org [172.17.221.23]) by Version 5.5.2655.55) id LP7A4NQW; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:11:02 +0200 Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <20030610201617.GA26760@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.06.02 Original-cc: Jonathan Walther Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org 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:15021 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:15021 On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:16:17 -0400 Miles Bader wrote: > Well, no it's not. If writing tools to get at the data is hard or risky then > things still suck, no matter how well documented the format is. Yeah, sure. But "binary repository" does not necessarily imply "getting the data is hard or risky". > For many users, of course, it's the same either way, but one of the big > attractions of CVS was exactly that what it does is quite understandable, and > when all else failed, you could use emacs to edit the repository... As I've said in another message, what CVS does is not that understandable for people with a non-Unix background (I think). > Um, that's not exactly a comforting answer... > > I'd rather have things _not get trashed_! Yeah, but again: binary does not imply more fragile. What if you save things compressed, but do two or three copies? I mean, if I were implementing a "binary virtual filesystem" for source control, I'd do my best to make the thing reliable against catastrophes... I'd expect the same from actual source control developers. Database systems like Oracle do save their data in binary, proprietary formats, and in my experience you don't lose data often with Oracle. Perhaps I've been fortunate ;) > Failing that, I'd like the damage to be limited, and recoverable, and the > more I can do this without using special tools, the better (special tools are > great when they work of course, but ...). I agree. Of course I'd rather have the data in clear text, easy to access, than in binary formats. But if binary is going to buy me other commodities, I'm willing to trust the developers (after a few months/years of testing, of course ;) All in all, I have a slight preference for Subversion, but any system that works reliably, it's faster than CVS and improves on its worst "features" is fine by me (when the time is ripe). Juanma