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: deleting rcs keywords from emacs sources Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:35:20 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20040323143520.GA2538@fencepost> References: <20040323122810.7979.JMBARRANQUERO@wke.es> <20040323131316.GA29657@fencepost> <20040323142253.7985.JMBARRANQUERO@wke.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1080053819 15833 80.91.224.253 (23 Mar 2004 14:56:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 23 15:56:52 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5nKm-0000QJ-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:56:52 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5nKm-0001g2-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:56:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5nHr-0007nr-DW for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:53:51 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B5nFq-0007Tv-5C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:51:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B5nFI-0007Ha-Oz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:51:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5n4N-0005BL-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:39:55 -0500 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1B5mzw-0001cX-Vb; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:35:20 -0500 Original-To: Juanma Barranquero Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040323142253.7985.JMBARRANQUERO@wke.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20790 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20790 On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:01:59PM +0100, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > > Yes -- it's much, much (much) better than CVS (and subversion). This is > > _not_ an advantage of subversion. > > Sorry, but "much better" is subjective. I know, at least a bit, what > decentralized VC systems (like BitKeeper and Arch and Monotone) do, and > I agree that it *is* interesting and useful; but I don't think I can > unconditionally agree that it is "better" than the centralized model of > CVS and Subversion and other tools. I think the main point is that `centralized' is the easy case, and arch can do that too. If people want centralized, that's no problem -- but the additional freedom of painless distributed development is a _significant_ advantage to arch. [Perhaps this is not something that's entirely obvious if you've not used it before, but it's wonderfully liberating.] -Miles -- Freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose --Janis Joplin