On 2/21/06, Radoslaw Szkodzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ruini Xue wrote:
>
>    I found distributed VCS is what I want, however there are so many of
> them. After some basic reading, I want to choose between
>    darcs and mercurial.  But I can no decide which is better, or what's
> their main differences and how about their future development?
>

Better for what? What is the project/commit/file size?
Is the project going to receive a lot of conflicting patches?

I am looking for one light weight VCS to maintain all my personal documents, such as
notes, papers etc. There're not so many conflicts, because I am the only user, :)

Major differences:
- In Darcs you can enforce that a testsuite is run before committing
- Darcs has less well-compressed format, but not by much
- Darcs has some problems with very large repositories - patch applying
can take a long time

This is not a drawback for my case

- Darcs doesn't provide a special, optimised transfer protocol
- Darcs is better at conflict resolution (because its patch hunks
are better designed)

What Darcs attracts me is its patches. I can apply some, get rid of some and reorder patches easily, which I found is not
so straightforward in Mercurial.

- Darcs' programming language is Haskell, which is compiled.
Mercurial is in Python - interpreted language as of yet.
- There's no kernel repository clone in Darcs anymore.
- Darcs stores binary files more efficiently I think.

As  Benoit Boissinot mentioned :  Mercurial uses binary diff to store the files. I don't know how Darcs is doing.
I'd like to know more about their efficiency on binary files, for lots of my documents are binary.

Ruini Xue

_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users

Reply via email to