On 8/20/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS, > > arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian > > Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
To which I'd respond that Arch fills a very different niche, closer to DARCS. But I'm leaving the Arch (tla/baz/bzr) boat too - patch-oriented SCMs were fun, but very disappointing. There is a central design flaw in pure patch tracking, and neither Arch nor DARCS do anything about it: no matter how much you track patches merged, you need to be able to identify convergence. GIT does this so well by being identity-oriented, that you can do a ton of patch trading on top (via email, StGIT, quilt, whatever) and things still make sense after merging and remerging ad infinitum. I'm running my Arch repos through this git-archimport-script: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=112539589428505&w=2 cheers, martin