simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 07:25:08 EST 2007
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Simon Marlow:
>> - conflicts: working with non-trivial branches on darcs is practically
>> impossible. A fix is in the works, but it's not clear how long it
>> will be before it is available in a released darcs version.
> I don't think this is entirely fair. It's trivial to have branches with
> darcs *if* you are prepared to abandon your history on a merge. With
> many other (at least the non-distributed) vcs, you always lose your
> history on a merge. So, the conflict bug prevents us from getting the
> added value that we would like to get from darcs, but it doesn't
> necessarily put us into a worse position than with other vcses.
In trying to be neutral I was perhaps unfair to darcs. Even with the
current state of affairs I find darcs more useful than CVS when it comes to
merging. (however, at least with CVS we used to have annotate...)
But I do suspect the other VC systems are a lot better than `diff3` when it
comes to merging, and they do retain history (although perhaps not in the
first-class way that darcs does).
> (Don't get me wrong, I do hate the conflict bug and it has bitten me
> quite badly.)
>> - speed: many operations are impractical (annotate, darcs changes
>> <file>), and many operations just take "too long" (i.e. long enough
>> that you go and do something else rather than wait for it to finish,
>> which incurs a context-switch cost).
> My main gripe with speed is actually pulling (esp darcs-all as it
> involves many repos) and push, which partially is a network issue.
I almost never pull over the network. We have a local full repo into which
a cron job pulls ever hour, and all our local trees are duplicated from
that. I'm aware this workflow isn't suitable for everyone, though.
More information about the Cvs-ghc