From: Tom Lord [mailto:lord@regexps.com]
> The Slashdot article is about arch (which we all know to be
> very cool), but
> it cites Tom Lord's comparison of arch to Subversion. Hmm.
> What to do?
> Not very complimentary -- the things he says are true, but
> Subversion is designed with different goals from Arch.
>If you find errors in the comparison or chart, please do let me know.
I don't find errors (as I mentioned); what I do find is a clear
advertisement of arch at Subversion's expense. This isn't a bad thing. I
especially like the clarity (and I love arch!). OTOH, it does sometimes get
a little MyWayOrTheHighway; it looks like you're trying to say that
Subversion is uniformly inferior to arch, when in reality that just isn't
true.
I just think it would be a great idea for the Subversion project to make up
a "rebuttal" to this document, not with the intent of posting it and getting
in a fight, but rather with the intent of helping Tom moderate it so that he
can attract the sort of people who would truly benefit from arch's
advantages over Subversion. Who knows? We may even wind up with an article
which will clearly spell out the differences in approach and usefulness
between the two.
>If you make a reply, perhaps spelling out the different goals, I think
>I'd like to link to it. That's not a promise, but a statement of
>orientation.
I can't; I don't know enough.
I can tell you the one reason I started looking at Subversion: it replaces
CVS with something which does all the things I like in CVS the same basic
way, but does them RIGHT.
>-t
-Billy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:04 2006