On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Haskellers, > > I would like to take an informal poll for the purposes of darcs > recruitment. Could you please complete this sentence for me? > > "I would contribute to darcs if only..." >
I haven't used darcs much, so it's possible that I'll be forced to start contributing by my own binding hypothetical. I would contribute to darcs if only it had support / could have support for splitting and merging repositories. For example, I like to work in a big repository of all my stuff ever, because most of the things I do rarely exceed an experiment in one file. But once something does get big enough to be interesting, I want to split it off into its own repository. But that's just the use case: doing it the git way (go through all patches, discard irrelevant ones, filter relevant ones, thus losing all correlation with the original repository) is not going to inspire me; I'd like to see support for it in the beautiful patch theory. Luke > > The answers I am most interested in hearing go beyond "... I had more > time". For instance, if you are contributing to other Haskell/volunteer > projects, why are you contributing more to them, rather than darcs? > > > > > > > > The context: > > Lately, darcs has suffered a setback: the GHC team has decided that it > is now time to switch to a different system, like git or Mercurial. > This is probably a good thing for GHC and for us. By the way, good > luck to them, and thanks for everything! (better GHC == better darcs) > > But where is darcs going? For now, we are going to have to focus on > what we do best, providing precision merging and a consistent user > interface for small-to-medium sized projects. I want more, though! I > want to see darcs 2.1 come out next year, performance enhanced out the > wazoo, and running great on Windows. And I want to see Future Darcs, > the universal revision control system, seamlessly integrating with > everybody else. > > We need to learn to do better so that darcs can achieve this kind of > wild success. For example, whereas darcs suffers from the "day job" > problem, xmonad has had to turn developers away! > > As Don mentions, this is partly thanks to their extreme accessibility > (better self-documentation). But does anyone have more specific ideas > about things we need to change so that you can contribute to darcs? > How do we hit critical hacker mass? > > I have jotted down some other thoughts here regarding recruitment here: > http://wiki.darcs.net/index.html/Recruitment > > In the meantime, if you have been discouraged from hacking on darcs, > we want to know why, and how we can change things! > > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
