From: Dick Davies <rasputnik@...>
Date: 2004-04-02T03:54:31+09:00
Subject: OT: VCS systems (was Re: Dormant projects (was Status of AOP in Ruby) )

gabriele renzi wrote:
> il Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:26:00 +0900, Dick Davies

>>I like SubVersion myself :)

For small values of 'like'...

> If I understod right some talks on #ruby-lang it seem that subversion,
> while being generally better than cvs, still suffer from the basic
> problem of being a centralized VCS.

True, but that's not a killer for me. I hate its slew of dependencies, 
not least apache2 and db4.
Nice if you like that kind of thing, but it means you have to svn dump 
your repos to
get them into another system, and it takes an afternoon to install it. yuk.

> BitKeeper and gnuarch OTOH, allows multiple fork/branch of the same
> project to live in diferent places, but still allowing re-merge of the
> branches at any time.

Is it called gnuarch this week? Last time I looked it was larch, before 
that arch.
arch was promising but I don't like the bazillion commands you have to use.
At least svn is mostly cvs command line compatible (except for copy, 
move and other additions).

Sigh. All hardware sucks, all software sucks, etc....

> This is interesting:
> http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/bese-devel/2004-March/000073.html

> Btw, matz just said in ruby-core 2730 that ruby development will
> switch to using DARCS, I wonder if this relates to his choice to adopt
> the glasgow haskell compiler has the default backend for Rite.

Another one to try - cool, thanks.
Anyone else got a favourite?