On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:00:26 -0700, Jason Dagit <[email protected]> said:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Simon Michael<[email protected]> > wrote: >> Yes. A good article, but I can't make sense of the three paragraphs >> where he talks about darcs. > It took me a while to read the whole thing, but I've finally > finished. What I like about this article is that it tells us what > are the great features of other vcs. Which I see as an opportunity > for inspiration and refinement. >[…] > This paragraph was interesting to me as well: Both Mercurial and Git > decouple fetching remote changes from merging them with local > changes. If Bob fetches Alice's revisions, he can still commit his > changes without needing to merge with hers first. When he merges > afterward, he will still have a permanent record of his committed > changes. If the merge runs into trouble, he will be able to recover > his earlier work. [Snip proposed implementation] I'm not sure what this decoupling means, but it could also be implemented by having a darcs receive (or fetch, co-send, or dnes) command, that would be to pull like send is to push. It would let you select remote patches, then create a patch bundle with them, which you can then apply whenever you want to. It's one more command, but it's also one less assymetry in the command set. FWIW, Florent _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
