[openbeos] Re: Organizational question

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:50:39 +0200 CEST, Axel Dörfler
<axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Niels Reedijk <Niels.Reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Arch isn't very complicated to use, it's crude. That might seem
> > identical, but it isn't. It is true that the comments for arch seem
> > difficult, or to explicit. However, all commands are consistent and
> > understandable. As soon as you get into the workflow, you will know
> > the proper commands for everyday use, and it will be easy enough to
> > collect other information from the reference for more specialised
> > tasks.
> 
> I read a short introduction to arch as well, and I think it's way to
> complicated to create a patch and to submit it. IMO let's rather wait
> for a later version or branch of it before thinking to adopt it; it's a
> bit too simple in what it does now.

If really all you want to do is create a small patch for a bug that
has been hitting you like a rock for a long time, then there's nothing
wrong with using the standard gnu patch utils. However, if you are
developing a larger feature, you might need a bit more time to do so.
In the meanwhile, arch allows you to keep up to date with the
changesets in the 'mainline'. If it is ready, and tested, than you can
opt in for inclusion. Or consider a company that makes a customization
to tracker (a logo). With arch they can keep their own changes, and
stay up to date with the changesets in the mainline as well, because
arch uses intelligent merges.

You see, software development is all about managing changesets. It is
about managing how to make sure all the relevant changesets stay
together. Arch is merely a tool to guide the changesets on their
proper way, like a set of traffic rules. As soon as you get into that
analogy, and into the concepts arch brings with it, you'll see that
it's not complicated, nor an overkill.

And not to forget, it works (fundamentally). 

Niels

Other related posts: