Re: fsfs; I certainly look forward to it. I think by now everyone is pretty aware of bdb's shortcomings for Subversion. You live, you learn.
Re: Trac; I haven't tried it. I've heard it has caused problems similar to what viewcvs has caused. But, if it communicates with the subversion server as a client, I imagine it would work well -- if not, then it'll have the same problems as viewcvs. (There is supposed to be some experimental viewcvs code that uses the client interface, which would also fix things). It sucks to give write access to web clients, but apparently that requirement is bdb's fault.
Re: arch; I dunno... the technical arguments for it don't hold a lot of sway with me. There's an article that I can never find when I want it, which I think very successfully defends the advantages of a centralized repository. Basically the claim is that distributed repositories are necessary only for a very small number of projects (like the Linux Kernel), and are detrimental to most open source projects, where centralization provides transparency. What I've seen of arch also seems rather arcane; reminds me of qmail a little, in that the author made up all sorts of weird conventions. But I dunno, maybe.
Re: RSS; I was having problems posting this last article. It's probably an anomoly.
Re: bashrc; dammit, why are there so many rc scripts for the shell? I can never keep track of them all, or which ones get called in favor of others. Anyway, the post-commit chmod trick is working for now.