|
From: | Thomas Lord |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] revc |
Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:25:10 -0700 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) |
Hi! Yes. I'm interested. Excuse me, briefly, while I core dump at you: There are some very good ideas in Arch that are being lost. I have a pretty decent (not perfected, just "actionable") idea of what Arch 2.0 should be and how revc fits in. I have some new ideas, too. Among them, first hints of how to build-in distributed, decentralized revision control at the storage level: make it part of what users see as the "file system". Also, beginning to *seriously* think of ways to (a) integrate source code revision control deeply into apps such as IDEs (e.g., "patches to functions, not files") (b) handle other media types (e.g., a word-processor document). There's some "thesis" kind of work to be done, too. I mean a "writing up" of things. Over the past couple of months I've watched perhaps a dozen or so good programmers, on two mailing lists, try to make complex decisions about revision control. In both conversations, people wanted to summarize and compare various systems. They were trying to construct "taxonomies" of features of the design space, etc. And, while, yes... good programmers ... that discussion was lame. There should (or should 'a been) a carefully written Arch paper aimed at bringing some lucidity to the current dialog. The "something else" projects that I'm working on aren't entirely Arch-irrelevant either. Those are also "distributed, decentralized" systems with persistent stores and collaborative work on documents, etc. So, Arch stuff should come up in those projects too -- it's just not the highest priority right now. I stopped working on Arch 2.0 for the very simple and necessary reason that I could not afford to continue it (and still can't). It's not *good* that 1.x has fallen aside as it has but it could turn out to be *convenient* if work on 2.0 were to happen, just because the 2.0 project would retain all the wisdom of the 1.x experience, but shed any pressing need for exact upwards compatibility. (Can "less users" be good for a project? :-) If someone wants to work on Arch 2.0, and is experienced enough to collaborate with me, and has bandwidth to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.... I'll help as I can. Heck, an optional Flower-based (basiscraft.com) "smart server" for Arch 2.0 could be very interesting. But... the main problem is resources. I can't afford to work on it. I don't like how public projects so often wind up wasting the time of everyone involved (to some third party's benefit). I don't like the way "inner circles" of bordering-on-success projects like Arch turn into pitched-battle power plays and back stabbing. I see no point to the paradigm of project mgt. Arch 1.x was born under. So, no, there are no active plans for furthering Arch 2.0 even though, technically, it's an attractive idea. Any ideas about making it practical for everyone are welcome. -t Laurent Wandrebeck wrote: 2008/3/26, Andy Tai <address@hidden>:Thank you for locating the Arch 2.0 prototype. It should be of interest, historically at least.You're welcome. After a bit of reading about GNU/Arch, it seems clear that this wonderful piece of software is falling into oblivion :-( Tom is interested by something else, some devs left for bazaar, some went to git etc etc, and even the FSF is advocating for bazaar-ng. I don't think that tla 1.x is going to see a lot more dev, and revc hasn't (yet?) seen someone continuing the path opened by Tom. Is there somewhere any official position on tla's future ? Is there someone interested in its (revc) revival ? Regards, Laurent _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |