Re: Kernel SCM saga..

Jan Hudec
2005-04-11T06:36:28Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1616 bytes --]

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 <martin@dalecki.de> 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 <martin@dalecki.de> 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 <bulb@ucw.cz>

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]