|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
So, I need to set up a version control system... | by nix | 2004-12-14 21:54:22 |
| I like the design of Arch the best |
by ToLazyToThink |
2004-12-15 00:07:24 |
but truthfully I haven't used any vcs besides SCCS (*shudders*) and Visual Source Safe (*re-represses memories, stabs brain to kill them for sure*).
I keep on meaning to try them, but work only allows "approved" software, and I don't have any side projects going right now that need source control.
The thing I like about arch is it's very much a the "unix" way of doing things. It's a very complex system built on top of a core of simple primatives.
An arch changeset is just a tarball of patches, with some extra metadate to handle permissions and renames. It pretty much just automates what you would do manually if you didn't have any source control besides diff and patch.
It never modifies a changeset once it's written to the archive, so there is no danger that a kill -9 at the right moment could corrupt your data. I know subversion used to have those types of problems, but now that it has a new backend, I don't know if those problems still exist.
No custom server needed. Archives can be accessed via http, webdav, ftp, ssh, or local filesystem.
The downsides, no official Win32 support. There are a couple of hacks floating around, but they have problems because windows doesn't support long enough paths. But that will probably change with the 2.0 version, win32 support via cygwin is apparently on the todo list.
The other downsid is Arch is often labled as hard to use. I don't know if that's just because it allows you to do more, does it differently than CVS, or just because it's that much harder to use.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
