gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 18:47 UTC (Mon) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
Parent article: subversion 1.0 is released

This is definitely going to seem a little trollish, my apologies. I simply want to recommend to people whom are considering switching to Subversion to first take a look at GNU Arch (http://www.gnuarch.org).

Where-as subversion is (in a loose sense) CVS + fixes, Arch is quite different. It is still quite possible and easy to do things the same way as you would in CVS/Subversion (checkout, modify, update, commit), Arch offers several advantages including very powerful merging, library tracking, super-easy branching/tagging, and more.

The real kicker (for me, personally) is how easy it is to setup an Arch server. All you do is setup a server with SFTP/FTP/DAV, and *tada* you have an Arch server. Give it HTTP access and you have a public read-only archive. Setting up Arch on SourceForge, or any other pure web host, is dead easy. In contrast, it can be a lot of time and pain trying to get CVS or Subversion setup (especially for multi-developer situations).

GNU Arch has very poor Windows/Cygwin support, however, so I would recommend you avoid Arch if you have Windows developers.

If all you're looking for is a better CVS, by all means checkout Subversion. It's an absolutely great replacement. :)

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 19:42 UTC (Mon) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link] (4 responses)

You're right, it does seem a bit trollish. As does the Arch cheerleading on Slashdot. And the Arch comments that were sent to the Subversion mailing list a year or so back.

Arch is great, I'm sure, but it's not Subversion. If there's a good CVS import tool for Arch, let's see that announced on LWN, and then we can all talk about how great it is.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:14 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]

I for one don't mind the Arch comment; thanks for letting us know about another alternative.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:23 UTC (Mon) by amk (subscriber, #19) [Link]

It should also be noted that arch is in a fairly early state
of development, and documentation is scanty, consisting primarily of a tutorial and a set of Wiki reference pages, both in varying states of up-to-dateness. After trying out Arch for a bit recently, I've gone to Subversion instead, and plan to re-assess Arch in a year or so (at which time I hope the documentation will be better).

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:37 UTC (Mon) by walters (subscriber, #7396) [Link]

Check out cscvs:
http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/cscvs

imports from CVS

Posted Mar 30, 2004 8:01 UTC (Tue) by mbp (subscriber, #2737) [Link]

I don't think conversion from CVS should be given as much weight as it often is.

It is hard to do properly, it often takes a lot of admin time to do the conversion (even with svn), and at the end you produce something that you will rarely, if ever refer to. It sinks effort into an asset that will depreciate over time, as the changes become less and less relevant to new work.

None of these tools force you to stop using CVS. It's easy to keep old versions in CVS, and new versions in the new system. If you need to refer to the history, or make a bugfix branch of an old release, do it in CVS. That is a *far* safer choice than hoping the conversion went properly, and if you're trying to make a bugfix branch then being absolutely safe is probably important.

What I suggest is: keep existing mature trees in CVS. Try a small project in the new system: svn or arch or whatever. If you like it, start new projects in that system and see how they go. When it comes time to do a new x.0 version of your product, snapshot CVS and do future development in the new system. (People often create new CVS modules for this case anyhow.)

Importing from CVS can be an interesting benchmark but it is not very relevant to day-to-day work.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 19:58 UTC (Mon) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (3 responses)

I appreciated having the update on the status of the Arch project, although the advocacy ("first take a look at") was excessive.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:39 UTC (Mon) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] (1 responses)

Assuming the poster meant "before you actually switch" this is just good advice regardless of what the problem to be solved is.

Looking at alternatives *after* you've chosen one is of limited usefullness.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 24, 2004 18:28 UTC (Tue) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link]

"Also" would have been a bit less strident than "first", to equal effect.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 20:39 UTC (Mon) by walters (subscriber, #7396) [Link]

I've written a bit about why I think so many arch fans are insistent about it.

gnu arch

Posted Feb 23, 2004 21:23 UTC (Mon) by ruin8tr (guest, #16593) [Link]

Not trollish, just premature. Arch isn't at the same level of stability and documentation as subversion. The fact that it still can't deal with filenames containing spaces was the final straw that made me drop it from consideration for my latest project.