Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

On Mar 24, 2004, at 13:22, David Garamond wrote:

> From what I read here and there, BitKeeper excels primarily in merging 
> (good merging is apparently a very complex and hard problem) and GUI 
> stuffs.
There's not a lot of GUI in arch, but star-merge is fairly incredible.  This is how tla (the main arch implementation)
itselfis developed.  
 
Lots of branches in lots of archives by lots of people.

>>     Unfortunately, I have never and will never use Bitkeeper unless 
>> someone buys me a license for some reason.  The distributed model 
>> seems like the only way to go for the open source development of the 
>> future.
>
> Not necessarily. For small to medium projects, a centralized model 
> might work better.
I make use of the distributed nature of arch in my personal projects 
with no other developers.  Offline work is just a branch in another 
archive that gets merged in later.
Arch supports a centralized model as well as anything else, and I've 
got a big centralized set of archives, but I don't always have good 
connectivity to the master.  This is where the distributed model wins.  
A server/network/whatever outage does not have the opportunity to slow 
me down.  In the worst case, a long outage causes my branch to drift a 
little further from head of line than it normally would.

-- 
Dustin Sallings