Daniel Carrera writes: > - **Easy** - Easy to learn. Easy to use. Easy branches. Easy merging. > Most version control systems have around 60 commands (git has 133). > Darcs attains the same or better feature set with 32.
Unfortunately, it's just not true that Darcs has the same or better feature set as git and Mercurial. There is a whole DAG-ful of stuff that you can do with git or Mercurial that you can't do at all with Darcs. Specifically, of the commands I use every day, Darcs has no equivalents for gitk, git show-branch, git branch, git reset, git merge, and git rebase because they work on the DAG in a single repo. > Due to their clean and simple design, ... and the repository = branch = workspace assumption ... > Darcs’ commands are easier to learn and easier to understand. Darcs's commands *are* well-designed. It's also true that for small-ish projects (a couple hundred files, a couple thousand patches or revisions, a handful of branches) the repo = branch = ws assumption is a *killer* simplification. Those git commands that have no Darcs counterparts are basically YAGNIs in this context. Add to that the elimination of strategic considerations from merging branches (git has two non-trivial merge strategies, Bazaar has maybe a dozen or so!, and of course for all three you need to worry about the merge order), and you've got a big, big win. But please, let's not make claims that go overboard. Darcs *is* missing a lot of functionality that is essential for some tasks and in some organizations; it is not a fully functional replacement for git, Mercurial, or even Bazaar. Especially, Darcs does not provide access to the history DAG. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
