Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:03:33 +0000
From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Message-ID: <20041206020333.GK2799@suffields.me.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
	<26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net>
	<20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk>
	<20041206015353.GA7353@aku>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20041206015353.GA7353@aku>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1894018028=="
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3046
Lines: 96

--===============1894018028==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SCOJXUq1iwCn05li"
Content-Disposition: inline


--SCOJXUq1iwCn05li
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:53:54AM +0100, Andre Kuehne wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 04:25:22PM -0800, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> > >=20
> > > On Dec 4, 2004, at 16:06, Tom Browder wrote:
> > >=20
> > > >Does arch offer or plan to offer those three features (CVS rtag=20
> > > >equivalent,
> > > >binary diff, CVSROOT equivalent)?
> > >=20
> > > 	There has been discussion of binary diffs a while back, but I don't=
=20
> > > remember quite what came out of it.
> >=20
> > Arch already has the only kind of binary diff that is possible.
>=20
> You consider "putting the original file and its replacement side by side"
> a binary diff?

It fulfills the requirement of storing enough data to have the
equivalent binary patch. So yes.

> > It would be possible to compress the changesets better but there is
> > little demand for this, to the point where nobody cares enough to do
> > it.
>=20
> This seems to be a popular statement when it comes to missing features,

That's because the set of things which people care about enough to
talk about on mailing lists, but not enough to implement, is a large
subset of the set of things which people care about enough to talk
about on mailing lists. Things in this set will also inevitably recur
(since they don't get implemented but people still want to talk about
them), so these things will be the *most* talked about on mailing
lists. Therefore the above will be the most common response to people
talking about missing features.

This is inevitable. It will always be true regardless of how much is
implemented, for any project.

> but you can say this about _everything_ not yet done, and it certainly
> doesn't give you a hint about demand.

You could say that, but it wouldn't be accurate. Only some things fall
into this class.

--=20
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

--SCOJXUq1iwCn05li
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBs731lpK98RSteX8RArlBAKCOTBIDQqr6LVAOTMcKxf3mlYHmaQCgis1E
2wcR3QatfYWs6j17wgWRa6Q=
=fd4L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SCOJXUq1iwCn05li--


--===============1894018028==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
--===============1894018028==--