Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iB6LoIbh008751 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:50:18 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC35976FD5 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:50:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CbQu3-00052f-F6 for migo@homemail.com; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:00:19 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CbQt7-0004yE-LU for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:59:21 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CbQt5-0004xX-Ek for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:59:20 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CbQt5-0004xU-BB for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:59:19 -0500 Received: from [194.217.242.90] (helo=anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CbQiX-0005dD-Ii for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:48:25 -0500 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254] helo=localhost) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CbQiX-000DTl-6U for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:48:25 +0000 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7EBCA7C693; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:48:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Bruce Stephens To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq> <26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net> <20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk> <87pt1o9kvb.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200412061850.iB6IoWmS036469@xl2.seyza.com> <87brd7428y.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <878y8bjgre.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> X-Hashcash: 1:22:041206:gnu-arch-users@gnu.org::ylPDSWr8WXIh4fbj:000000000000000000000000000000000000000CDY5 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:48:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Charles Duffy's message of "Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:12:28 -0600") Message-ID: <873byjjdxz.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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: 1247 Lines: 32 Charles Duffy writes: > Losing dumb server support seems a bit much to pay for such a > generally unimportant feature. Storing binary files more compactly seems pretty unimportant, I agree (well, it seems unimportant to me). Storing text files in such a way that they can be retrieved efficiently seems more valuable---so valuable that we're willing to store multiple revisions in plain text. I think it's at least possible that per-file things (such as "cvs annotate" and the like) are more commonly used than things like star-merge, and so a version control system implementation that optimised those (and made things like star-merge less efficient) might be a better fit for what people use version control systems for. You wouldn't need to lose dumb server support---there'd be nothing stopping an implementation also producing and reading Arch archives. Indeed, this xdelta storage of revisions could simply be a more compact revision library implementation---that would surely be uncontroversial. _______________________________________________ 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/