[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch. |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:23:09 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:52:18AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > That was quite a shock. For projects with lots of small changes, it
> > probably is inconsequential, but for me, on a dialup, it would really
> > suck.
>
> I use a dial-up and I can't imagine a more dial-up friendly tool than
> arch. When I need to merge changes from others, with their own
> archives, I typically create a local mirror from them. In updating
> my local mirror, I read from them just about the minimum amount of
> data that is sufficient and thereafter operate entirely locally. In
> combination with a local revision library, operations on these many
> archives are just about as fast as can be.
Yeah, I also use a dialup (last person in Japan to do so, I think :-), which
makes CVS pretty much unusable, but arch is a pleasure.
Note that unlike Tom I only use a local mirror for some archives; for my
`main' archive, I actually just directly access the remote archive, and in
most case this is just fine over a dialup. More specifically, using a local
greedy revision-library (which operates automatically once you set it up), it
almost always operates `optimally' bandwidth-wise for transferring
changesets, with a small amount of additional latency-bounded overhead
because arch is using a dumb archive (not particularly objectionable).
[I think the main problem seems to be:
(1) A bit of culture shock -- people are so stuck in `CVS mode', that
arch's new take on things takes some time to wrap your head around
(during which most people seem to post `how arch should be changed'
messages to this mailing list :-)
[Actually I think it's not really `new', it's the old patch-files +
lots of trees approach that linux kernel hackers should be very
familiar with, only with arch doing all the annoying grotty work and
bookkeeping; since I think this approach is really rather _good_ except
for all the grotty work and bookkeeping, I also think arch is the bee's
knees.]
(2) Arch needs a tiny bit of setup to really work well, revision libraries
in particular, so a completely raw user may get a bad impression.
[Note for someone setting up a server too, subversion almost certainly
requires a lot _more_ work!]
(3) Of course there are rough edges, though tla has come a long way
recently...
]
-Miles
--
Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Miles Bader, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Tom Lord, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Pierce T . Wetter III, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Miles Bader, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Pierce T . Wetter III, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Tom Lord, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Pierce T . Wetter III, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Paul Hedderly, 2004/02/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Stig Brautaset, 2004/02/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Jan Hudec, 2004/02/24
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.,
Miles Bader <=
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Miles Bader, 2004/02/20
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Pierce T . Wetter III, 2004/02/23
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/26