>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> I think you are close to right on a few things but not
Thomas> quite right overall.
I don't see anything that suggests I didn't hit it on the button. I
didn't say you didn't understand git, simply that arch isn't git and
isn't git on purpose. The desiderata you posted allow you to bolt git
on the side, but "being git" is not part of the desiderata for Arch.
Thomas> Arch is also still relevant compared to git because of
Thomas> integrity issues.
By which you mean?
Thomas> You contrast git with arch by pointing out that git
Thomas> reconstructs (intrinsic) history from trees. Um. So does
Thomas> arch.
Sure, but that's not what I meant. The point is that in git because
the name is a function of the semantics of the stored object, the
"real history" and the "historical record" are one and the same. If
you find an object that is semantically identical, then it's part of
the historical record, and has a natural place in it. This is not
true of arch; the history is an artificial cosntruct.
--
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
_______________________________________________
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/
