Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
>
> Hi, Paolo, people,
>
> Once Paolo has mentioned GIT as a replacement for GNU arch (aka tla). I
> personally use git and very much satisfied with it. In opposite, arch
> doesn't look beautiful by design and low in performance.
I'm not that much dissatisfied with arch's design, except for the
revision library (which should not have been browsable in the file
system -- it should have been something like a git pack, except global
for all archives). If you forget for a moment the speed problems, git
is a little more suited to a centralized model and arch's cherry picking
is a little more powerful (it does not require me to clone the other
person's repository). But the bad speed is indeed a problem, and when I
recently changed my hard disk it took me two hours to rebuild the last
revision of gst! Three or four revisions did not apply with "tla get",
but went fine if I first made a cacherev of the immediately previous
ones. That's also why I make a occasionally updated CVS repository: for
casual users it's much simpler to "cvs up" than to "tla update" or "tla
replay".
So, I don't think that arch's design is necessarily bad, only its
implementation.
> 1. What SCM do you (Paolo) use personally: Arch or GIT? If GIT, can I
> clone your repo?
Arch for GNU projects. git for everything else.
> 2. What do you - people - think about moving to GIT?
I was planning a poll soon, and the move after 3.0 is released.
Thanks for bringing up the issue!
Paolo
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
Locked
