Hello everyone, I've been using darcs for quite some time but I decided this year to give git a go, partly because of the buzz around it but mostly because I must interact with subversion repos and that the git interface for svn is quite neat. I’m still trying to understand the real difference, apart from the culture of the authors (OS developers vs abstract scientists), since this is a sugar-level detail. I watched the video http://projects.haskell.org/camp/unique about this matter but it doesn't really answer: in darcs and camp, you assume by default that you will want to reorder patches, somehow, while in git, you don't (which might turn out helpful when you have to interact with silly old svn). But that's a detail. I would be interested to see actual examples where darcs/camp can avoid conflicts because it's smarter, or even by simply smartly cherry-picking in a big repo, while git would force you to select all patches by hand (still, in that case, that would imply that a rather small script could manage rebasing in git by selecting proper consistent sets of patches, if the cherry-picking is not intrinsically smarter in camp).
Any clue to help me understand? [And sorry to bring the probably ever asked question of comparison with the _other_.] Best regards, Samuel Hym
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
