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

["Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>]

> I've got the feeling that CVSROOT/* and friends are "basically obvious"
> only to people with some sort of Unix background. But as you know, CVS

I don't think so.  I think they're only non-obvious to people for whom
*any* repository structure would be non-obvious.  After all, they're
just plain text and have very few interdependencies.

You copy the repository with rsync just fine (it might end up being
in a somewhat inconsistent state where some commits are missing,
but it will work just fine), whereas with something Subversion there's
a particular protocol to follow.  Of course, it has its own advantages.

> Yeah, I agree with that. Still, some of them insist in things like
> decentralization, etc. I've got nothing against a centralized repository,
> on the contrary :)

Arch does not impose any decentralization whatsoever.  All it does is
that it allows decentralization if you want it, and since it's something
that other systems can't do (and it's really neat when you need it),
of course they talk a lot about it.  But it's like CVS going on and
on about remote repositories: that doesn't mean "I'll use RCS because
I want my repository to be local".


	Stefan