Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
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 ...
How about:
"Most version control systems have around 60 commands (git has 133).
Thanks to its simpler design, Darcs only needs 32."
I still want to say something about the commands themselves being
simpler. You are right that there are two things here. It's not just the
commands. The basic model is simpler. I'll need more time to think about
how to convey that.
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.
I hope that the text above, incomplete as it is, corrects the problem.
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
