How fundamental to darcs phylosophy is the decision of
considering a repo a branch?
The reason I ask is that I would like to tell people who work
with me about darcs, but there's a major problem I can't solve.
(...)
- Maintain an 'upstream' repo of the server in all locations
- Merge local changes into (a copy of ) that repository
- darcs push these changes back.
This method will give you always the opportunity of resolving
conflicts locally wherever you are and you avoid the NAT issue.
I do that already. But, at least for me, branchs are born like
this: I first have a small idea, and write a few tests at home.
Then, a few others at office. I can't start a new branch just
because of one or two lines. But, after some time, 90% of that
is discarded and 10% become two sequences A and B of patches
trying to acchieve the same thing. A is at home, B is at office
(and sometimes there's a C in another town).
My solution was to stop working at the same idea in different
places, but I don't like that. Sometimes I leave office and go
home just because I realize something I left there was actually
important, and going home is easier than adding some code to
my office repo and trying to merge both later. (My home is just
a few minutes from office, though.)
With that, added to the fact that I can't guarantee I'll be able
to 'darcs push' every time I leave home or office, and I have
the same problem.
Of course, when it's just me working on a single project, I
like darcs enough to overlook that. But with many people working
on many projects, and everyone having many ideas for each
project, I would not know how to handle that.
Thanks,
Maurício
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
