On 8/26/2009 0:44, Jason Dagit wrote:
Hello,
I just became aware of this article (I haven't even read it yet) and I
thought others here might find it interesting:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1595636
This seems to be the only paragraph mentioning darcs itself:
»Perhaps the most powerful approach is that taken by Darcs, a
distributed revision-control system that is truly revolutionary in how
it looks at changes. Instead of a simple chain or graph of changes,
Darcs has a much more powerful theory of how changes depend on each
other. This allows it to be enormously more successful at cherry-picking
changes than any other distributed revision-control system. Why isn't
everyone using Darcs, then? For years, it had severe performance
problems that made it completely impractical. These have been addressed,
to the point where it is now merely quite slow. Its more fundamental
problem is that its theory is tricky to grasp, so two developers who are
not immersed in Darcs lore can have trouble telling whether they have
the same changes or not.«
I have no idea what the author is trying to get at with that last
sentence, but I figure it is probably wrong in at least two or three
ways depending on how I look at it.
--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
