Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> Exactly what I said. Gross duplication of work and yet not *one* of > them is vaguely feature complete. No less than six different groups, > and probably more, have implemented the same thing and done it > differently badly every time. That indicates something is very > broken here. Yes, something's broken. My sense is that there's enough design space for half a dozen projects (in that about half a dozen seem different enough that it's hard to imagine merger), and much of that design choice flows through to the user: using baz feels different to using darcs which feels different to monotone. I guess I want to believe that in a year or two things will have settled down and everyone will agree on the dimensions where variation makes sense, and there'll be a handful of good programs covering them. (Then I see yet another lightweight text editing component with source highlighting announced on freshmeat, or another make replacement with automatic C/C++ include dependency checking which uses (shock!) a scripting language. Or yet another almost plain-text document format that can be converted to HTML, PDF, manpages, etc.) [...] _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
