[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!]
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:40:27 +0200

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:11:40 -0400
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> wrote:

> 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.

I think they're "obvious" in the sense that cutting and pasting your
code from then (in the case of catastrophic failure) is posible.
Non-obvious in the sense that, after that crash, is not easy to modify
the CVS files to get a working repository again. At least, not to people
who's not spent a time delving into the documentation and/or the CVSROOT
files themselves.

> 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.

I was thinking more of BitKeeper (after reading long arguments from
Linus et al). My understanding is that BitKeeper imposes it, in the
sense that with BK there's no central repository and checked out source
trees, but more like multiple repositories which are synchronized every
now and then. But I can be wrong, I've not read BK documentation.

> 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".

Sure. I didn't want to imply that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]