On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:49:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > *Especially* with their "everything is in Arch" philosophy. There are > good reasons that people may choose Subversion or Darcs instead. Every > VC I've ever used falls flat on its face in certain common scenarios, > and Arch is no more a silver bullet than Darcs, Subversion, or CVS.
Certainly not, and I haven't claimed as such. I mentioned which system we would be using, for informational purposes, in response to a comment about using revision control to aid collaboration. > I would be very pleased to have Ubuntu folks track my Darcs > repositories. But at the same time, I don't *expect* them to. Sending > me diffs as wishlist bugs is still fine. I expect that integrating with darcs will be a lower priority than with more popular revision control systems. > Just don't expect me to dig out arch and try to apply Arch diffs to my > darcs repos. Isn't going to happen. I don't expect any particular involvement on the part of any individual developer, just sharing a bit about how we intend to attack the problem of managing all of these source code branches. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
