Difference between revisions of "Darcs vs. Git"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(replace, tests, wrong push) |
(Added context for GHC's switch from darcs to git) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | = Darcs Resources = |
||
| − | I don't understand why so many people move from darcs to git. |
||
| − | + | * http://darcs.net/ Main site |
|
| + | * http://darcs.net/FAQ |
||
| − | Darcs can replace identifiers, Git cannot. |
||
| − | I often rename identifiers. |
||
| − | The identifier substitution of Darcs both saves space |
||
| − | and allows for smooth merging. |
||
| − | In Git renamings of identifiers look like you alter a lot of lines here and there. |
||
| − | I don't think that Git can easily implement that feature, |
||
| − | because it has no notion of a patch. |
||
| + | * http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Darcs |
||
| − | == darcs check --test == |
||
| + | * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theory_and_conflicts |
||
| − | Darcs lets you easily run a test suite after every commit. |
||
| − | Usually I register |
||
| + | = Git resources = |
||
| − | : <code>cabal configure && cabal build && cabal haddock && cabal test</code> |
||
| + | * http://git-scm.com/ Main site |
||
| − | as a darcs test. |
||
| − | After recording a patch, |
||
| − | darcs unpacks the repository temporarily in the state after adding the patch. |
||
| − | Then it runs the test suite within that temporary copy of the repository. |
||
| − | If you add a file the Cabal description but forgot <code>darcs add</code> |
||
| − | or vice versa, then the darcs test will quickly spot the problem. |
||
| + | * http://git-scm.com/book |
||
| − | This almost not possible with Git. |
||
| − | It could certainly be hacked into <code>.git/hooks/pre-commit.sample</code>, |
||
| − | but the crucial feature of running a test |
||
| − | is to reject a commit if it does not pass the tests. |
||
| − | If there is a way in Git then it is by far more complicated than in Darcs. |
||
| + | * http://gitref.org/ |
||
| − | I see no reason why Git does not support pre-commit tests properly. |
||
| + | * http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/74462.html |
||
| − | == Pushing to the wrong repository == |
||
| − | + | = GHC's switch from darcs to git = |
|
| − | to an unrelated repository or to the wrong branch of a repository. |
||
| − | And it is cumbersome and dangerous to get rid of the wrongly pushed commits, |
||
| − | if operating in a server git repository. |
||
| − | In darcs this cannot happen so easily |
||
| − | since normally darcs asks you which patch to push. |
||
| − | This way you can see early if something starts to go wrong. |
||
| + | * http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-January/019752.html |
||
| − | == Update of working copy files == |
||
| + | * http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ezgvs/rfc_migrating_ghc_development_to_git/ interesting thread |
||
| − | |||
| − | == Branches == |
||
| − | |||
| − | == Merging == |
||
| − | |||
| − | == GitHub == |
||
| − | |||
| − | github sucks, looping scripts, pull requests, how to get a git repository |
||
Latest revision as of 18:50, 18 June 2014
Darcs Resources
- http://darcs.net/ Main site
Git resources
- http://git-scm.com/ Main site