IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New That would be enough for me not to use arch
Besides, doesn't arch have performance issues?

Another appropriate one is darcs, but again it is slower than Linus needs. However I'd suspect that darcs (written in Haskell) could speed up more easily than arch could (mess of shell scripts last I checked).

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Seems like all of them have performance issues
It appears that the single biggest problem with switching source control is that all of them have performance problems when applied to a project like Linux. Very few projects have Linux's combinatin of being a very big project and getting a huge number of small patches applied.

Jay
New Re: That would be enough for me not to use arch
[...] could speed up more easily than arch could (mess of shell scripts last I checked).

arch has had a C based implementation for some time ... can't comment on the "mess" part. :)
--
-- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link|http://onestepback.org|http://onestepback.org]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
     Linus and source code control - (bluke) - (6)
         GNU Arch comes closest. -NT - (pwhysall) - (5)
             Interestingly enough Linus seems to prefer Monotone - (bluke) - (4)
                 I think I know why... - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     That would be enough for me not to use arch - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                         Seems like all of them have performance issues - (JayMehaffey)
                         Re: That would be enough for me not to use arch - (JimWeirich)

Powered by blind unix!
53 ms