On 25-Mar-04, at 12:25 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> It's definitely not a magic tool that makes bad code good and
> conflicting patches happy. It solves other problems, though.
I don't think anything mentioned in this thread so far would be an
enormous improvement over what we have now. However, I am still open to
trying Arch or SVN: in the long run, I think the productivity gain from
even an incremental improvement in the development toolset is worth a
little effort in relearning and migration.
But as I said, I don't think it's a critical issue, and if other
developers would rather we stick with what we have, that's fine with
me.
WRT the relative merits of CVS, Arch, and SVN, David Wheeler (of
Bricolage) has written an interesting article comparing the three
systems:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html
I think the lack of good Win32 support (unless rectified before the
release of 7.5) is a pretty major problem with Arch -- that alone might
be sufficient to prevent us from adopting it.
-Neil
