Re: [Gnu-arch-users] on {arch} and other names

[Jani Monoses]

> 
> I think every single one of us long('ish) time arch users have felt
> like this.  For a while...
> It is something one tends to get over, especially because most
> conventions make sense.  The only relatively annoying thing is =
> completion with bash, but this one is definately a bug in bash itself
> (with a fix available, by Tez).  Now if only the bash maintainer would
> accept that patch....

but in what way do these conventions make sense and why are they
superior to .arch style names? Except the fact they're already here

> Choosing svn over arch because of these things is just silly, imho. 
> And you're missing out on a lot of cool stuff, such as sane branching
> and merging.  Not to mention the fact that you won't need to run
> apache2, or fix your repository every so many days.

It is the fact that I heard so many good things about arch made me post
in the first place. And svn is just fine for things CVS was fine for and
for small not-too-distributed projects its ease of setup is a win. It
does the 'simple things' (renames, atomicty etc) , and for my projects I
never needed star-merge and the power of arch. But I would've used it
for consistency weren't it so much harder to get started with.
BTW I only started using svn after they had a sane acces method instead
of DAV namely the ra_svn layer. I don't like depending on too many
external software either.

Jani