DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
	b=iCc77hLfcq/CpYa3m5nK4DX3RhVV1mLDHyzKBQV+zwupQ2SLJuyX6X2Lby8/REc1sImVCsRlBwYflgbUFwkTf5d2Dt2ZOZ0LZkuzUDo8e/Z3jc0iVwRxLfzr7DrOFPIjY/Fys5+A7mwXU4TBFFeVWYStpmJlgJ4fsi/ZLrbn/dw=
Message-ID: <fc339e4a050206184223348ca0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:42:21 +0900
From: Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch status update
In-Reply-To: <20050207021300.GA20691@benfinney.id.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <200502062235.j16MZAG0017878@xl2.seyza.com>
	<20050207021300.GA20691@benfinney.id.au>
Precedence: list
Reply-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org
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: 1796
Lines: 45
> The roadmap says:
> 
>     "GNU Arch 1.3.1 15 Mar 2005 -- This will be primarily a
>     maintenance/rejuvination release of GNU Arch 1.x. Experience has
>     shown that permitting the baz line to serve as the de facto mainline
>     for GNU Arch 1.x will be highly problematic."
> 
> For those who came in late, can someone point to these experiences (blog
> entries?  mailing list thread URL?) showing that following baz will be
> "highly problematic" for GNU Arch?

I've been trying out baz lately.  You've probably seen all my baz bug reports.

My impression is that the general thrust of baz, to clean up the UI
and be a bit more "CVS like," and to put into practice some of the
optimizations people have talked about, is by and large good.

The fact that they're moving quickly is nice in some ways -- sometimes
the "endless bickering without actual change" style of the arch
mailing lists can be very frustrating.  However to my mind, there does
seem to be slightly too much of a "if in doubt throw it in" style to
baz (this is kept in check to some degree because the baz developers
appear to have fairly reasonable taste).

Traditional tla development sometimes went to far in the opposite
direction (to put it cynically, "plan giant software architectures 10
years in advance; bicker; implode"), so when it works, baz's style can
seem refreshing.

I think both branches can benefit from the other's approach, but that
Tom is perhaps right that there needs to be a wee bit more thought
than just "merge everything baz does."

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.


_______________________________________________
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/