Re: Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?

[Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>]

Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com> writes:
> I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch 
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was 
> probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a 
> non-free tool.
>
> I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've 
> read, it seems to be a good tool.

I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues.  For instance
it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish
(judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-).  The concept
of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages,
but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with
the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.

-Miles
-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.