[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] DARCS

From: Zack Brown
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] DARCS
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 19:25:30 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 07:04:40PM +0000, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> As for Arch's popularity, I think it's far too early to form a
> definite opinion.  CVS remains the sixty stone gorilla of the
> open-source revision control world, and we've a long way to go before
> that ever changes.

With CVS, you know what you're getting. For all its warts, it's still
very, very predictable. You don't have to worry about the repository
format changing with the next revision or anything like that. So
projects that need stability will be tempted to deal with CVS'
limitations just to get the stability.

A lot of projects that currently use CVS will also have a hard time
switching. A lot of people genuinely like CVS, and don't want to change.
Many of them have also gotten so used to CVS' behavior that it has
become second nature to them, and new concepts like distributed
repositories are very difficult to get their minds around.

There are also plenty of small projects that don't need the
sophistication of tla. Dealing with tla's startup overhead may be fine
for large projects, but for a lot of smaller things and single-user
projects CVS and Subversion will probably be a lot of users' first

But there are a lot of really big projects out there that would find
their entire development model transformed by something like tla.

Also, I suspect that a lot of projects have stayed smaller than they could
become, precisely because nothing like tla was available. As amazing as
the growth of free software has been, tla offers to bring it to a new
level. It's just a different order of organization.

Be well,

> cheers,
> --Mirian
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> GNU arch home page:

Zack Brown

reply via email to

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