<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rl@cse.unsw.edu.au">rl@cse.unsw.edu.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Maybe investing some time in fixing the most obvious darcs problems would be a better solution?</blockquote><div><br>We're working on that over at Darcs HQ, but there is no guarantee that we'd come close to fixing the problems within the 4-5 week window that Ian mentioned. Supposing that the main problems GHC has with darcs 2 format get solved in the next month, would that give GHC reason enough to keep using darcs? It seems many of you are eager to use git; perhaps even if darcs was working to satisfaction.<br>
<br>People will be working on making darcs work better with the GHC repo as a test case either way. And personally, since I'm not a GHC dev, the decision doesn't affect my life. Having said that, I'm still obviously biased. I'd love for darcs to work well enough that this never came up.<br>
<br>Let me throw out one more idea:<br>What if, as a GHC contributor, I could pick equally between git and darcs? My understanding is that, while not optimal, you could use tailor[1] to synchronize a darcs repository with a git one. Offer up both repositories and keep them in sync. Let the masses decide?<br>
<br>Jason<br></div></div><br>[1] <a href="http://progetti.arstecnica.it/tailor">http://progetti.arstecnica.it/tailor</a><br></div>