[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin

From: John A Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:33:21 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:25:07PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:

*However* the original poster was asking if we do "binary diff like Subversion", and SVN's claim to fame is that they do delta compression on binary files.

So when you responded with "yes we do, it works perfectly the same as SVN." You were incorrect.

No, it does work just as well (and better) than svn.

Our diff ability is better in one sense (probably most senses). It is not better at minimizing disk space.

Actually, as far as stating that it should be called delta compression instead of binary diff goes against what I would consider the popular terminology.

You mean 'svn propaganda', not 'popular terminology'. Of *course*
their propaganda tries to confuse the terminology. Confusing users is
how marketing works.

Well, I heard about it back when I was using only CVS, and that was 2-3 years before I ever heard about SVN. So it isn't *just* subversion that is at fault.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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