Excerpts from Petr Rockai's message of Tue Mar 10 10:13:37 +0100 2009: > Hi, > > every now and then, someone mentions the size of the darcs darcs repo as the > measure of where darcs scales. I'd like to warn people that before they do > that, they should mention, that darcs darcs repo is anxiously avoiding any of > the more troublesome aspects of darcs. Eg. there are very few conflict > resolutions in darcs darcs repo. We impose a very strict workflow on our > contributors, which very few projects will be willing to adopt (even in darcs > itself, there's a fair amount of dissent). Other workflows will result in many > more conflict resolutions, sometimes in conflict fights and repos of size of > the darcs repo could wind up unusable due to merging slowness and bugs (we > tried to branch darcs repo with anything other than minor changes twice, both > attempts resulting in massive problems with merging and ultimately loss of the > branch due to its un-usability). > > We should keep our marketing honest. I wouldn't recommend using darcs to any > medium project (ie. more than a couple hundred patches and a single, at most > two contributors) without a darcs expert on board. At least not until the core > is either rewritten or debugged. To put it simply, while darcs is smart, it's > not reliable, and in an RCS, that's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
On the other end, people that follow the strict workflow of avoiding conflicts as much as possible, can reasonably have a repo of the size of darcs itself. The only long-term restriction is to have only short-lived branches of the synchronized trunk. So I would say that depending on how you treat conflicts, darcs may scale from small projects (as you've described) to medium projects (as darcs itself). All the best, -- Nicolas Pouillard _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
