Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Rationale for `revc' and `bzr'

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 13:25:31 +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> address@hidden (James Blackwell) writes:
> 
> > Anybody that considers continuing the tla and/or baz code base should bear
> > in mind that the two teams that were working on the codebases decided to
> > go for full rewrites.
> 
> Well, anybody looking for a version control system should bear in mind
> that there have been so many GNU Arch enthusiasts, and so many
> developers eager to contribute to it during years, that it /can't/ be a
> bad VCS.  Or am I missing something?  ;-)
> 
> To me it looks like Monotone and especially GIT exacerbated the
> competition among VCS projects, and also paved the way for a new,
> better, storage model.  I have the impression that _these_ are the main
> reasons for the two full rewrites.
> 
> Additionally, I don't think a better storage model necessarily makes a
> better VCS.

It's not (just) a storage model. It is a better model for the relation
between files and revisions.

--
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature