Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

On Mar 24, 2004, at 13:22, David Garamond wrote:

> From what I read here and there, BitKeeper excels primarily in merging
> (good merging is apparently a very complex and hard problem) and GUI
> stuffs.

There's not a lot of GUI in arch, but star-merge is fairly incredible.
This is how tla (the main arch implementation) itself is developed.
Lots of branches in lots of archives by lots of people.

>> Unfortunately, I have never and will never use Bitkeeper unless
>> someone buys me a license for some reason. The distributed model
>> seems like the only way to go for the open source development of the
>> future.
>
> Not necessarily. For small to medium projects, a centralized model
> might work better.

I make use of the distributed nature of arch in my personal projects
with no other developers. Offline work is just a branch in another
archive that gets merged in later.

Arch supports a centralized model as well as anything else, and I've
got a big centralized set of archives, but I don't always have good
connectivity to the master. This is where the distributed model wins.
A server/network/whatever outage does not have the opportunity to slow
me down. In the worst case, a long outage causes my branch to drift a
little further from head of line than it normally would.

--
Dustin Sallings