Source code control

Stefan Reinauer stepan at
Mon Jan 5 20:11:00 CET 2004

* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at> [040105 23:17]:
> > BK is pretty slow on a large tree.  However, it's several thousand (!)
> > times faster than arch in most cases, which is by design just abominably
> > slow at even the most trivial of common operations.
> That arch is slow is something I will look into.  Although it should
> be able to trivially be beat sourceforges anonymous CVS servers...
This is something that has pretty much changed when arch was rewritten
from being a big huge mess of shell scripts to one single binary called
tla. The former was pretty unusable, the later works not (noticably) slower
than bk.

> > The flip side is that arch is about a decade away from being as
> > performant and mature as BK is today.
> If the performance is not good enough to be usable we won't go there.
> And if it is usable but annoying it can be fixed.

bk has some nice gui tools that I really miss from tla. Last time I
checked tlator, it was really more a try than a program...
On the other hand that is just my i-need-colors-to-go-away-from-cvs

For the merge facilities, I don't think this project has had, or will have,
big problems with merging different trees together. And no versioning
system can make up to the caution it takes to see the conceptional
problems that might hide behind a merge conflict.


     Stefan Reinauer, SUSE LINUX AG
Teamleader Architecture Development

More information about the coreboot mailing list