Re: [Pyobjc-dev] CVS Sucks.

[Andrew P. L. Jr. <bs...@al...>]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Marc-Antoine Parent wrote:

> >   tla/arch is both better designed then CVS, and adds enough to be
> > worth the trouble, but its hard to learn.
>
> If I may add my opinion as a lurker:
> I like the tla/arch philosophy better than svn or cvs myself, but it
> _is_ an investment to learn ...

I think people are forgetting how much of an investment CVS is to learn.

How many people can actually do more than a simple checkout or update in
CVS?  Certainly an order of magnitude less than the number of general
users.

Subversion has a significant number of external dependencies.  This is not
a good thing.

> But it is also much less mainstream, so add-ons are also likely to come
> fast to svn.

Subversion has been explicitly *rejected* by the Linux kernel (went with
BitKeeper) and FreeBSD (went with Perforce).  Arch/tla is much more like
BitKeeper and Perforce in design philosophy.  It will be interesting to
see if folks revisit these decisions now that alternatives are available.

tla/arch is also directly supported on Savannah.  That's not a small
thing.

I especially like the ability to do a checkin on my laptop without an
active internet connection to the central repository and then merge the
changes to the main repository when I do get a connection.  Subversion and
CVS fail at this; tla/arch and monotone work just fine with this.

-a