Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?

[Charles Duffy]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 01:07, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> There are some things I didn't see:
> * Is anyone currently working on automated caching?

Of course -- Arch has automated caching build in. See "revision
libraries", archive mirrors and cacherevs. There've been some folks
proposing caching other files as well, but such proposals typically add
nothing revlibs don't do already.

> * Is it even slightly plausible to change the default
>   filename/tagname conventions so arch will
>   work more easily with common tools (e.g., vi/vim, more, csh,
>   bash, Windows (it doesn't handle long names well))?
>   Conventions are so arbitrary, yet the ones arch uses
>   seem designed to cause unnecessary problems.

Go read the archives. This has been rehashed time and time again -- but
folks who actually try to use Arch for a while (myself included) tend to
appreciate the conventions as they stand.

Making a practice of changing longstanding conventions easily is also
not a friendly thing to do with software in production usage.

> * Has anyone thought about the "signing of signing" issue

This is arguably a problem for the underlying crypto subsystem. See
GnuPG's "web of trust" support.

> Also - has anyone tried to compare BitKeeper and Arch in detail?

Most of the people who are most interested in doing so are prevented by
BitKeeper's license. Comparing actual usage of Arch vs marketing copy or
3rd-party accounts of BitKeeper is not the ideal way to come to a sane
conclusion. (That said, one BK-using kernel developer friend of mine
experimented with Arch for a while and was reportedly quite impressed).