Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> The paper work for FSF is being done background by Michael Olson and >> >> I. I'll report progress when we get progresses. >> > >> > I'm very sorry to be late. >> > Could you someone take over the task? >> > I'd like to step back from the task. >> >> Thanks for the effort you've put into this so far. >> >> I could take over the Emacs merge effort. I got ERC into Emacs, so it >> shouldn't be too hard to get DVC in. > > Thank you very much.
Year, I'm joining my thanks to Masatake's. I really believe DVC is good, and it should evolve and convince people as fast as possible, to avoid other people writting their own, different mode for their VCS (there are already around 3 modes for hg, 2 for git, 2 for monotone, ...). Getting into GNU Emacs is a great step forward. And as Masatake, I hardly get any time to work on DVC (I got distracted by minor things such as my Ph.D two years ago, my post-doc, and teaching to my students now ;-) ). >> > I think some of functions of DVC should be implemented in vc or >> > vc-dired. There are some duplicated code and function among DVC and >> > VC. e.g. annotation. Maybe DVC's annotation implementation is better >> > because DVC does most of things asynchronously. >> >> I dislike vc because of its non-asynchronous behavior > > Maybe this is the most important point. Yes and no. With distributed systems, most operations are local, and with most tools today (hg and git in particular), they're _really_ fast. With git, you'll get a hard time finding a project for which diffing the whole tree takes more than a second on a decent machine. I'm willing to wait for Emacs for half a second, but of course, I wouldn't have said so for a "CVS diff" to a remote potentially far away and overloaded server ... -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
