Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

Schwaighofer Clemens
2005-02-16T13:42:03Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Catalin Marinas wrote:
| Clemens Schwaighofer <cs@tequila.co.jp> wrote:
|
|>On 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
|>
|>>With all of the complaining about BK you'd think there'd be an equal
|>>alternative.
|>
|>there is no need for that. There is already one. Subversion is a more
|>than mature VCS. Apache group is switching to it, gcc people are
|>strongly thinking about it, and those two are _huge_ projects with tons
|>of developers, patches, trunks, etc.
|
|
| Subversion and BK are quite different. The first one is snapshot
| oriented and the latter is changeset oriented (I find this a more
| powerful concept). Subversion is not distributed (you have some helper
| scripts but I don't know how stable they are), which is somehow
| mandatory for the way Linux is developed. Subversion also lacks any
| smart merging capabilities (it doesn't even remember what was
| merged).
|
| GNU Arch is probably as close as you can get regarding features and
| performance (I can't compare the two since I've never used BK).

well yes, I never searched for a distributed VCS, thats why I never
tried GNU Arch not so much (but I have to say, that it has hyper complex
command line options, perhaps darcs might be better).

Furthermore I sadly have to admit that I don't know the exact difference
between snapshot and changeset oriented. I just know that subversion has
~ Atomic comits and it works more than fine for me :)

Perhaps somebody can point me out to some Documentation about that (can
be in PM and not to the list)

lg, Clemens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCE01KjBz/yQjBxz8RAgumAKDPg8I0hJU+rs/UIb0wRcgQy2dPOwCcDy6g
4994vMzy66WeTuB/fArYgMY=
=Nyim
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----