[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arch as a replacement for CVS for OpenBSD?
A B <email@example.com> writes:
> Is anyone considering arch, http://www.regexps.com/#arch,
> a replacement for CVS as the OpenBSD repository tree?
> The feature comparison is impressive compared to CVS and Subversion:
The feature comparison is made by the author.
The documentation of the project is very confused and mixes slandering of
other projects with ramblings about open source philosophy and some description
about how to use it.
It's not really clear to me how the repository works, but the more I look at
it the more I suspect that everyone must have an own copy of the repository,
making this a glorified variant of rcs.
This is not a replacement for cvs. A replacement would have a small
transitional cost. arch looks completly different from all other revision
handling systems I've seen. It's so different that I won't even waste more
time trying to understand it.
I was looking at subversion yesterday. It looks much more promising (including
a decent license). As soon as I debug it, I will see if it can handle
something the size of OpenBSD.
But don't even imagine that OpenBSD will switch the revision handling system
within a year or two. Something like that must be done very carefully to
a system that's tested. If we'd want to do it at all.