On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:03:52AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To summarize, I have this implict goal of making darcs be a very focused, > minimal but extensible tool which plays nicely with addons contributed from > all > over the place. Is anyone with me here or does this sound like over > engineering?
I have been thinking of darcs as the first warp ship, the Phoenix, from the Star Trek movie First Contact. As such, it serves a purpose as a scientific experiment with room for (controlled) exploring. I am using darcs in ways I would not have thought of using an RCS. There is no lack of ideas (and disputes) about how patch theory should be best put to use. And maybe soon there will be an upgrade of the warp engine. I think it's too soon to "tighten the API" for darcs. But I do completely agree on the goal. All the basic operations on darcs repos: record, pull, unpull and so on, would suite fine in a library, and the command line interface and other tools can become clients of that library. But first lets find these operations (and their names ;-) out. Then we can make darcs2 minimal by dropping legacy. Well, that's what I think, anyway. -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
