[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...)
From: |
Nathaniel Smith |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...) |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:01:54 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Thomas Lord <lord <at> emf.net> writes:
> By "definition", anything to be called Arch is:
>
> ~ a revision control system
> ~ using a decentralized database
> ~ supports replication of database nodes
> ~ operates well with "partial knowledge" (some nodes inaccessible)
> ~ supports easy branching and merging across separately
> administered database nodes which exchange only read-only rights
> ~ provides ACID properties to multiple users of a single database
> node
> ~ provides smart merging based on history-of-patches and
> common-ancestor computations
> ~ handles file renames during merging via logical file ids
> rather than tracing history
> ~ permits publication of database nodes using generic,
> commonly provided server-side software (e.g., an HTTP
> server or SFTP server)
> ~ has a partially-ordered user-defined namespace of revisions
> ~ also has a separate partially-ordered history graph of revisions
> ~ uses cryptographic hashing and signing to help establish the
> integrity
> and authentic authorship of revisions
> ~ encourages the signing and distribution of explicitly reviewable
> deltas between preceding and succeeding revisions
An idle thought: it might be a good idea to also think what
will differentiate Arch 2 from its competition. There are a lot
of distributed version control systems with roughly the above
properties these days; everyone will want to know what makes Arch 2
different, so might as well work out a good answer up front.
In the business analogy, you need differentiating features to
compete successfully; in the allocation-of-volunteer-resources
game, it seems valuable to sit down and articulate the reasons
why it is better to start a new project from scratch instead of
contributing missing pieces to an existing project. Plus, it'd
be just plain interesting to read :-).
Cheers,
-- Nathaniel
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, Andy Tai, 2006/04/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0?, Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Matteo Settenvini, 2006/04/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Aldrik KLEBER, 2006/04/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Peter Conrad, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...),
Nathaniel Smith <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: planning 2.0? (was re: Google...), Thomas Lord, 2006/04/21