Re: Gud lord!

[Miles Bader]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 03:07:47PM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> > Please call back when there's actually a _stable_ and well-supported
> > alternative; currently neither arch nor subversion are.
> 
> Define "stable."  I've been using arch without data loss for over a year
> on a code base of over a half a million lines.

How nice.

Dicsussions of whether to switch to arch or subversion are not uncommon, and
what I've seen so far always manages to bring up `issues' with the various
revision control systems.  It's not always `it lost all my files!'  For
instance in the case of arch, Tom Lord's original implementation is
apparently unusably slow in some cases; I guess there's alternative
implementation (in the works?) but that's still somewhat new (and so to be
treated with caution).  Some other issues with arch that often come include
(1) the somewhat murky rules/conventions for designating source-controlled
files, and (2) the naming conventions, which reflect Tom Lord's somewhat
wacky and idiosyncratic tastes, and put some people off.

Now all these things will eventually be worked out -- but that's the point:
arch is not yet a stable system, it's still undergoing change.  Some people
can deal with that, which is good, 'cause that way the issues _can_ be worked
out.  But emacs is not the project to use for experimenting with revision
control systems.

I certainly am no expert on any of these systems, and am relying on the
`buzz' for my info -- but I think in this case that's proper thing to do.
When some other system is really ready to be used, it will be pretty clear.

[another thing about arch I've wondered about is the use of FTP as a remote
protocol -- though I have no idea whether it's easy/practical to use
something else instead.  For better or for worse, ftp access is problematical
in many cases (including my own!); subversion's standard use of http is much
more practical.]

> I'm also curious what you mean by "well supported."  I can't think of a
> free software project in existence that has a more dedicated maintainer
> than arch does.

Stefan gave a good answer to this.

> Certainly not.  I wouldn't suggest a wholesale change to any system, not
> matter how "stable."  I would suggest a gateway maintainer for a CVS
> head "mirror" in an arch archive

Someone could do that on their own, if they like arch.

-Miles
-- 
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.'   [NYT]