Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 12:56 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

> Colin Walters wrote:
> > 
> > I am not concerned about size.
> 
> I am. Complexity also matters.

Sure.

> > I am very concerned about Furth or any other language as part of the arch 
> > protocol.
> 
> It seems that some scripting is required, so what you're suggesting will 
> lead to other languages becoming a defacto part of the protocol.

No, not at all.  The project-specific hooks will add optional
*convenience* functions.  Like "tla submit".  If you don't want to use
the provided hook (e.g. echo blah | mail address@hidden), then
you do it manually or write your own version for that project.

> Have you noticed that I like Lua? It's available now. But Tom fully 
> understands the issues here, and has rejected it, so I'm not going to 
> push for it. I also realise that if he was the kind of person who 
> settles for what's available, arch would not exist.

Yes, but arch had (and still has) very little in the way of competitors
in the distributed revision control space.  And what competitors exist
are all really quite different, with major tradeoffs.  Contrast to
programming languages, where competition is extremely fierce, and
reinvention of the wheel is common.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part