From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gud lord! Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 19:47:36 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030607234736.GA5741@gnu.org> References: <16098.1698.415992.223606@nick.uklinux.net> <1055004206.1439.12.camel@lan1> <20030607210527.GA20914@gnu.org> <1055023668.1517.46.camel@lan1> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055030144 11276 80.91.224.249 (7 Jun 2003 23:55:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 08 01:55:41 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 19OnXB-0002vg-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 01:55:41 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19OnqR-00049a-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:15:35 +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 19OnVl-0001yy-L0 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:54:13 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OnQh-0007Fo-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:48:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OnPg-0006bZ-Gd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:47:59 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19OnPM-0005hr-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:47:36 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.20) id 19OnPM-00025H-4r; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:47:36 -0400 Original-To: Robert Anderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1055023668.1517.46.camel@lan1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop 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:14892 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14892 On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 03:07:47PM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote: > > Please call back when there's actually a _stable_ and well-supported > > alternative; currently neither arch nor subversion are. > > Define "stable." I've been using arch without data loss for over a year > on a code base of over a half a million lines. How nice. 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. 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; I guess there's alternative implementation (in the works?) but that's still somewhat new (and so to be treated with caution). Some other issues with arch that often come include (1) the somewhat murky rules/conventions for designating source-controlled files, and (2) the naming conventions, which reflect Tom Lord's somewhat wacky and idiosyncratic tastes, and put some people off. 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. Some people can deal with that, which is good, 'cause that way the issues _can_ be worked out. But emacs is not the project to use for experimenting with revision control systems. 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. When some other system is really ready to be used, it will be pretty clear. [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.] > 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. > Certainly not. I wouldn't suggest a wholesale change to any system, not > matter how "stable." I would suggest a gateway maintainer for a CVS > head "mirror" in an arch archive Someone could do that on their own, if they like arch. -Miles -- `Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said. `All the past could be forgiven.' [NYT]