[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!]

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!]
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:16:17 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:55:44PM +0200, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> > It is a problem because you can't look inside with the usual tools,
> > so you end up locked with a specific set of tools and you have to
> > use them to get anything done.
> Yes, but that's ameliorated if the format is well documented.

Well, no it's not.  If writing tools to get at the data is hard or risky then
things still suck, no matter how well documented the format is.

For many users, of course, it's the same either way, but one of the big
attractions of CVS was exactly that what it does is quite understandable, and
when all else failed, you could use emacs to edit the repository...

> > And when there's a bug, it can end up pretty disastrous (basically, the
> > big-binary-blob implements something like a file-system, so a bug is like
> > a bug in your kernel that can trash your entire file system).
> Sure. Backups are always needed.

Um, that's not exactly a comforting answer...

I'd rather have things _not get trashed_!

Failing that, I'd like the damage to be limited, and recoverable, and the
more I can do this without using special tools, the better (special tools are
great when they work of course, but ...).

`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

reply via email to

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