On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:56:06 +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > On 2005-04-11, at 04:26, Miles Bader wrote: > > >Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Better don't waste your time with looking at Arch. Stick with patches > >>you maintain by hand combined with some scripts containing a list of > >>apply commands and you should be still more productive then when using > >>Arch. > > > >Arch has its problems, but please lay off the uninformed flamebait (the > >"issues" you complain about are so utterly minor as to be laughable). > > I wish you a lot of laughter after replying to an already 3 days old > message, > which was my final on Arch.
Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> complained:
> Arch isn't a sound example of software design. Quite contrary to the
> random notes posted by it's author the following issues did strike me
> the time I did evaluate it:
> [...]
I didn't comment on this first time, but I see I should have. *NONE* of
the issues you complained about were issues of *DESIGN*. They were all
issues of *ENGINEERING*. *ENGINEERING* issues can be fixed. One of the
issues does not even exist any longer (the diff/patch one -- it now
checks they are the right ones -- and in all other respects it is
*exactly* the same as depending on a library)
But what really matters here is the concept. Arch has a simple concept,
that works well. Others have different concepts, that work well or
almost well too (Darcs, Monotone).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
