On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So if you define `learning to use a VCS' as `branch, commit, send > > patch', I suspect the time is equal for both tla, darcs and CVS. > > The steps to do that with tla are: > > 1) set up an archive. Understand why the name of your archive must > contain a "@" > > < if you don't set up a revision library, then you get awfull > performances > > > 2) tla tag. Learn the Arch namespace, understand why your branch name > must contain a category, a branch, a version, ... > > 3) tla get > > 4) tla commit > > With, say, bzr, you do > > bzr branch http://host.com/path/to/project > cd project > <hack hack hack> > bzr commit
To translate this into a fair comparison with your description of tla: > bzr branch http://host.com/path/to/project Understand the URL format spec, the HTTP protocol, the apache web server, and the TCP protocol. Install Debian and apache. Configure mod_auth_whatever. > cd project Understand the unix filesystem. Implement a unix kernel. > <hack hack hack> Learn how to code. Estimated time required: ~10-15 years. I haven't seen such a ridiculous comparison since the last time somebody was playing partisan power games about revision control systems. It was clearly deliberately engineered to be as favourable as possible to one - pure political noise. This is exactly the sort of crap I was talking about earlier. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
