Johan Tibell <[email protected]> writes:
>> My main worry (personally) is losing the simplicity of Darcs, which I
>> think is a quality that we should hang to very tenaciously.
>
> Simplicity is a good principle, and I think it's one worth sticking
> too. However, sometimes you need to do complicated things (e.g. whole
> tree reorganisation) to your repository.
Or: as simple as possible, but no more :-)
> I prefer to have those operations available, even though tricky to
> use, than not at all.
In general, I'd like to find the Right way to implement a feature before
ratifying a (potentially Wrong) implementation in a stable release.
That is, I prefer rpg's "MIT style":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_Better
> The cost of pulling a complete (Git) repository isn't really that high
> given the efficiency of pack file transfer. Unexpected slowdowns are
> much worse as they are just that, unexpected.
Packs are on the roadmap for Darcs.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
