On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote: > small to medium sized ones). Last I checked, Arch was still too slow in > some areas, though that might have changed in recent months. Also, many
IMHO someone needs to rewrite ARCH using the RCS or SCCS format for the backend and a single file for the changesets and with sane parameters conventions miming SVN. The internal algorithms of arch seems the most advanced possible. It's just the interface and the fs backend that's so bad and doesn't compress in the backups either. SVN bsddb doesn't compress either by default, but at least the new fsfs compresses pretty well, not as good as CVS, but not as badly as bsddb and arch either. I may be completely wrong, so take the above just as a humble suggestion. darcs scares me a bit because it's in haskell, I don't believe very much in functional languages for compute intensive stuff, ram utilization skyrockets sometime (I wouldn't like to need >1G of ram to manage the tree). Other languages like python or perl are much slower than C/C++ too but at least ram utilization can be normally dominated to sane levels with them and they can be greatly optimized easily with C/C++ extensions of the performance critical parts. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
