Re: [Gnu-arch-users] subversion vs. cvs (vs. arch) over on pgsql-hackers

[James Blackwell]

In lists.arch.users, you wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2004, at 16:28, James Blackwell wrote:
>
>> Though you don't hear about it much, centralized support is built right
>> into arch. Just have everybody commit to the same archive. Everything
>> will just work.
>>
>> I use this when working with people on web-based projects. Because of
>> the nature of the beast, web based projects demand centralized
>> development. Arch works absolutely *great*.
>
>       That's kind of a difficult thing to get started on.  It's hard to say 
> things like, ``you won't want to do it that way,'' which is probably 
> the right answer.  I like to just say that it supports a centralized 
> development and let people figure out what to do with it after they get 
> started.

I'm wondering if you read me correctly. I'm saying that arch is
currently perfectly willing and able to work in a centralized archive,
where two or more developers push and pull from the same archive. 

>       I mean, a web project can be just as decentralized as anything else.  
> CVS will get you fairly focused on one way to do things, though.

Granted, simpler websites can usually be centralized.  More complex
sites with scripting, backend data (for example, working with a sql
server large of amounts of data) generally do not do as well in a
decentralized manner. 

Thats ok in arch though. I've worked with other arch developers on
backend development in a centralized manner, by all of use using the
same archive. :)

I think that a lot of people get tricked. Arch is so incredibly good at
handling decentralized development, that few ever realize that arch is
*perfectly* capable at handling centralized development as well!

Regards,
James


-- 
James Blackwell      Using I.T. to bring more             570-407-0488
Owner, Inframix      business to your business     http://inframix.com

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400