Simon Marlow wrote:
But what worries me is: if I just want to check out e.g. Haddock, I have
to get the entire fptools repo (350M+, wasn't it?). I can build a
source distribution with just the bits I want, but I can't get a darcs
tree with anything but the whole lot.
So, here's two potential
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 08:28:15PM +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
Gour wrote:
Nice to hear you are considering to move to darcs.
Basically I'm very happy with the working model of CVS, and subversion
darcs would allow you to locally record intermediate stages of a change,
making it easier to
Sven Panne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So my question in a nutshell: Why shall we move away from the mainstream
when the rest of the world (or most of) is quite happy with CVS or is
moving to subversion? I'm not completely against it, but we should have
very, very good reasons to do so.
Also, I think it's easier to split a darcs repo than it is to join them.
...
1. Make it possible to 'darcs get' just part of a tree. Patches
that don't touch any files in the live parts of the tree
are discarded. (I don't know if this is possible, or how
difficult it
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:17:07AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only tricky part is doppleganger patches. Basically at this point if
you get doppleganger patches then you should manually intervene, figure out
what the conflict is, manually fix it, and then resume. It's a big problem,
