From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!] Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:03:14 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200306101503.h5AF3EH9032505@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <20030610160057.9115.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> <200306101437.h5AEbxHI032125@rum.cs.yale.edu> <20030610165211.911A.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055257798 5559 80.91.224.249 (10 Jun 2003 15:09:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 10 17:09:49 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 19Pkkv-0001Qk-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:09:49 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19Pl5T-00050b-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:31:03 +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 19Pkl6-0005iJ-0J for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:10:00 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19Pkja-0005Ki-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:08:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19PkjT-0005Gc-NR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:08:21 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19PkeZ-0004BR-L0; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:03:15 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5AF3E0i032507; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:03:14 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h5AF3EH9032505; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:03:14 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Juanma Barranquero Original-cc: Miles Bader 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:15001 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:15001 > 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. Hmm... for me, what makes CVS what it is, is that it's (add salt throughout) easy to setup, easy to administer, lightweight, in the sense that when something goes wrong, you don't need to learn much about the in-repository format because it's basically obvious, so you can fix things fairly easily with the usual tools. I.e. you get to reuse the knowledge you've acquired while using all those other unix tools. The "mindset" of the user interface is much less significant, from my point of view. I also think it tends to be over-emphasized in all those tools where they use new terms and warn you "this is a whole new concept" whereas in the end it's just very much all the same: edit, update, merge, diff, commit. Sure things like tags and branches might work differently, but note that Subversion is radically different from CVS in this respect as well ;-) Stefan