On 29/05/07, Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Kirk wrote:
> No offense to the darcs creators, but
>
> 1) Only current Haskellers use it; everyone else either uses
> Subversion or is migrating to it;
If that is true, then they have missed the point. DVC is a real win for
most workflows.
The applicable alternatives to darcs are : bzr, git, mercurial, tla.
They have different pros and cons which are discussed at length on
various blogs.
svn just doesn't make the list; it's not a comparable project, because
it's centralised. SVK is more plausible but since it is essentially a
hack to implement decentralisation on top of centralisation, it has
different design constraints than things designed from the bottom-up as
decentralised.
How do the differing design constraints make svk not comparable?
As far as I understood it, it's a decentralised version control system
that happens to layer over a very popular existing system, and which
therefore gets some of its goodies like working over http.
osfameron
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
