[Gnu-arch-users] explaining why arch is better than subversion

[Zenaan Harkness]

For those who can do so, this comment in the current slashdot article
could use such a response:


Re:All that and he doesn't explain... (Score:3) 
by aardvarkjoe (156801) Alter Relationship on 2004-09-25 8:40
(#10344982)  
        Tom Lord has been to those lists as well. In all those times,
        including this one, he has never explained how arch is better.
This is exactly what turned me off from trying arch when I was looking
to replace my CVS stuff with something a little less wonky. Subversion
is very clear about what it does, and why it does it. When trying to
find out if arch might meet my needs better, all I found were a bunch of
rants by Lord about how "Subversion won't work, because it's deeply
flawed, and arch is better" Which, of course, is completely counter to
the reality that subversion has been working great for years. Maybe arch
really is better, but I'm not going to go through the pain of finding
out if it's obvious that even the author can't really explain why.


http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/24/1926208&tid=156