Re: [arch-users] [lord@emf.net: Re: gcc branches?]

[Walter Landry <wlandry at ucsd dot edu>]

Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> wrote:
> If the project was using `arch', I think you'd have an easier time.

Before everyone starts jumping in to flame Tom, let me give you my
perspective.  Since Tom stopped working on Arch, I'm the main person
continuing further development.

I don't think that it is wise for gcc development to start using Arch
quite yet.  The biggest problem right now is that Arch can be
painfully slow.  The documentation is also buggy and incomplete in
places, and it doesn't help that Arch sometimes works in a different
way from how people expect it to.

The current release is pretty bug-free, although there are still a few
"broken by design" problems still lurking.  The biggest problem for
you might be that Arch doesn't actually build on 64 bit machines or
under cygwin.  Not having either machine in front of me, and having
plenty of other things to work on, I don't know how difficult that
will be to fix.

However, I'm not saying that Arch doesn't have potential.  I wouldn't
be working on it if I thought that.  The features that Tom lists are
there and work reasonably well.  But even I don't know how to use all
of the Arch.  Even so, it is ok for trees that aren't too large.  I
use it every day, and I would certainly love to have an army of people
fixing and extending it.  But I don't want a bunch of you to try out
Arch, become disappointed, and then swear never to look at it again
(that may have happened already).

I would estimate that it will take another 5 months or so for Arch to
get to the point where I am comfortable recommending it for general
use (that is, to people who are not interested in working on version
control).

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu