Alexander Staubo writes: > On 10/18/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [1] All the fancy talk about patch theory comes to nought when you get > > > bogus conflicts, like when *nothing was changed*. Or when you inserted > > > code into the same spot as someone else. It happens all the time here. > > > > This is a FAQ, answered in the manual. > > Yep, but you missed my point. There are technical reasons for all > these glaring flaws, in the same way there are technical reasons for > the existence of bugs. But they're *flaws*. My point is precisely that this particular one is not a *flaw*, it's a conservative solution to a genuine problem. You're welcome to want to take more risks, but most people consider absolute reliability to be a sine qua non for a revision control system. If you have decent merge support, then occasional duplicate hunks in the merge output is just not a big deal once you understand why they are there. > (1) I consider Darcs to suffer from several showstopper bugs, some of > which I have enumerated. > (2) I think there's little interest and/or impetus in solving any of > them. > (3) I consider Darcs to be nearly dead in terms of major feature > development right now. > These are factors to consider when adopting a new version control > system. I would warn any newcomer to these issues in the interest of > full disclosure. Sure, they should be warned. I agree there are some technical showstoppers for certain classes of potential users, generally a smallish fraction of users. Evidently your use cases suffer from several of them. IMO, lack of interest in fixing bugs and generally moribund project are not problems with Darcs, though. It's just that your particular bugaboos are very expensive for the Darcs developers to fix, so they concentrate on tasks that give them more bang-for-buck. Specifically they *are* working on the exponential merge misery, and several developers have spent fruitless effort on the ssh issue. The only way to change that tradeoff is for you, or someone like you, to get involved in fixing the bugs that bug you. If you don't, then yes, Darcs should warn Mac users that there are some inefficiencies due to the in ability to use SSH control master features, and things like that. But I think it's over the top to say that a project is "nearly dead in terms of major feature development" just because they're not working on your favorite bugs and you think you don't want the features that they are working on. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
