> It might help your understanding if you think of darcs as being a little > more like multiplayer quilt than some sort of mercurial clone with different > commands. Darcs is (thankfully) like no other revision control system out > there, and it can definitely take some getting used to. Making sweeping > statements about it's design before you understand what it's trying to > achieve probably won't endear you to anyone, though.
The thing is, I adore patch theory, but it is the only thing that I miss in Hg. It is not for the typial use case I wish to apply darcs OR hg though. I am going to be encapsulating something (unless I feel the need to reimplement patch theory on something custom), and messing around with things until I have a type of repository I desire for my audience's needs and a tool to interface with it. So, my understanding of darcs isn't that perfect. That's the idea behind the questions I'm asking. A vanilla darcs could actually work for me, but I want these things which make for a not-such-a-good workflow pattern compared to hg and others (IMO) to be rationalised before I decide to go with that. Keith, thanks for the explanation, I really picked that quote up wrong from the manual. Of course CVS sucks! lol. I'm still thinking about what workflow improvements WOULD be worthwhile...... -- Declan Naughton _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
