Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephen Leake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If we are declaring DVC support for tla dead, that simplifies the fix. >> It also simplifies cleaning up the texinfo manual; we can simply start >> over. >> >> Do we still want to support arch, but by some other dvc back-end? > > I'd prefer that we did not declare arch support dead. Emacs still uses > it (via Miles Bader's bi-directional repo, which he syncs with the > official CVS repo). I continue to use it for some of my own projects, > as well. Also, until DVC has a 1.0 release, at least, it would be best > to support the single backend that Xtla supported, to ensure a smooth > migration to DVC.
For what it worth, here are the Debian popcon statistics for various revision control systems (http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst): $ grep -e ' git-core ' -e ' bazaar ' -e ' tla ' -e ' bzr ' \ -e ' mercurial ' -e ' monotone ' -e ' subversion ' -e ' cvs ' by_inst 872 cvs 18621 4458 11134 3029 0 961 subversion 13623 5992 5927 1703 1 2714 git-core 2054 741 612 701 0 3980 mercurial 1001 241 386 374 0 4127 tla 940 151 582 207 0 4887 bzr 679 196 183 300 0 6883 bazaar 366 82 250 34 0 7443 monotone 320 83 161 76 0 #Format # #<name> is the package name; #<inst> is the number of people who installed this package; #<vote> is the number of people who use this package regularly; #<old> is the number of people who installed, but don't use this package # regularly; #<recent> is the number of people who upgraded this package recently; #<no-files> is the number of people whose entry didn't contain enough # information (atime and ctime were 0). We have support for bzr and monotone, and according to those numbers, GNU Arch (if you include both tla and baz) is still more widely used than them (surprising, I wouldn't have said so !). -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
