On 25-Mar-04, at 3:03 PM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> I don't do Windows, but my understanding is that tla is as well
> supported on Windows as postgres is.
David Wheeler disagrees:
A serious weakness of arch is that it doesn't work well on
Windows-based systems, and it's not clear if that will ever change.
There are ports of arch, both non-native (Cygwin and Services for Unix)
and a native port too. However, the current win32 port is only in its
early stages, and the Win32 page on the Arch wiki says "Arch was never
intended to run on a non-POSIX system. Don't expect to have a full
blown arch on your Microsoft computer." At least part of the problem is
the long filenames used internally by arch; arch could certainly be
modified to help, though there doesn't seem to be much movement in that
direction. Other problematic areas include symbolic links, proper file
permissions, and newline problems, as well as the general immaturity of
the port as of March 2004. Some people don't think that poor Windows
support is a problem; to me (and others!), that's a serious problem.
Even if you don't use any Microsoft Windows systems, people don't want
to use many different SCM systems, so if one can handle many
environments and the other can't, people will use the one that can
handle more environments. I think GNU Arch's use will be hampered by
this lack of support as long as this is true, even for people who never
use Windows; good native Windows support is very important for an SCM
tool.
-Neil