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) itself is 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
