zooko <[email protected]> writes: > On Jan 24, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Tommy Pettersson wrote: > >> Darcs (and SVK) are "not recommended", because the alternatives can >> all handle large repos, whereas darcs can not > > Sounds like a reasonable recommendation. I would be interested in > having some automated generation of graphs of darcs performance and > scalability, generated by the buildbot. > >> The article also describes darcs' repo-is-a-branch-is-a-repo as >> inflexible compared to the competitors. This puzzles me, because I >> find this freedom *extremely* flexible. But I have not used any of >> the other systems, so I don't know what I'm missing out on. > > Yes, this is a common criticism of darcs. I can't tell whether there > is really some advantage to the way other dvcs's have separate notions > of branches and of repos, or whether the users of those systems are > mistakenly thinking that darcs's branch==repo causes some problems > that it doesn't.
The "advantage" is that by sacrificing flexibility for an enforced way of laying out branches within the repo, it makes it easy to list all the branches in someone else's repo -- you don't need to understand their layout, because everyone HAS to use that one way. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
