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.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
