> >> Subversion's command line calling a "branch" a copy?
>
> No. It's based on observations such as:
>
> 1) With subversion, a working tree is not the same thing
> as a source tree.
So?
Nor is it with CVS.
>
> 2) You have to use svn-specific tools to create, rename, or
> delete files.
Same with CVS.
>
> 3) The interface bends over backwards to preserve the feel
> of revisioned files rather than revisioned trees.
>
> One can argue that users will not accept anything but a CVS-workalike,
Which, mind you, SVN was supposed to feel like superficially.
CVS done right.
> but I do not find such cliches persuasive -- they set off red flags
> for me, actually. From what I've seen, you've even convinced a lot
> of prospective users with such cliches.
Well Tom, I hate to break it to you, but it must be said: There are many
prospective arch users, including me, who have tried arch, and got rid of
it fairly quickly.
Why?
Because even after reading the manual, the thing is too damn complex to
use. I couldn't figure out how to do simple things. I don't have time to
shoehorn your tool into my workflow. If it's not easy to use, i won't use
it. And Arch does not, in any way, qualify as easy to use.
Sure, maybe it's useful after you spend 4 weeks trying to get used to it,
and reworking your world around it. I don't care. Not gonna do it. Nor
are most users. One of the reasons bitkeeper is successful, and SVN has
been successful so far, is that one can take it, and be productive in
probably 30 minutes, without having to throw out concepts and things
you've learned from other revision control systems. You can be more
productive than you were before, incrementally, as you feel like exploring
more. Not so with arch.
I don't want to know about whatever fricking formal model or design you
have underlying arch. I want to do basically what i do with CVS, only
without the slowness, and without merges being a pain in the ass.
If you provided *just this kind of interface* in arch, i'd bet a lot more
people would use it.
So, if you have red flags, maybe that's a good thing for SVN. I'd really
hate to see it have the complexity of arch's interface.
Please don't try to tell me how it's really easy, and i'm just stupid, or
that i didn't spend enough time with arch, or didn't read the manual.
I did spend time with arch.
I did read the documentation. I understand it (which, i should point out,
is quite a feat, considering how wordy and confusing it is. It reminds me
quite a lot like reading 250 page legal opinions).
If it's so complex that i can't use it after that, well then, forget it.
I want a tool that works for me, not one that tries to think it's better
than me, or tells me everything i know it's wrong, regardless of
the actual reality of whether everything i know *is* wrong or not.
Become one with this idea, and you will become more successful.
I've talked with others who have thrown out arch, and they all have the
same complaint i do.
Nobody cares what arch can do if they can't use it.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 13 07:13:45 2002