Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Tue Dec 18 18:40:38 +0100 2007: > Excerpts from nicolas.pouillard's message of Tue Dec 18 01:36:47 -0800 2007: > > Nice move! However have you looked at darcs[1]? It's even better > > IMHO, it's smarter, smaller and a lot more easy to understand. > > > > I maintain a sup darcs repository [2] based on regularly importing the > > svn. > > I've actually fantasized about darcs for quite a while (e.g., [1]). I'm > convinced it's better than git in most ways. But the alterior motive > here is for me to get enough experience to introduce something at work, > and darcs's conflict resolution bug pretty much negated that for me.
The conflict resolution bug seems pretty hard at a first look. The good news is that Darcs 2 is almost there (pre-released a few days ago) and don't suffer from this bug. However most of the time you can avoid resolving conflicts by don't allowing conflicts in the main repository. This is a very practical way (that I use) as far as you don't have two public forks of a same project (i.e. you publish conflicts and conflict resolutions). > Git also has going for it its pace of development, operational speed, and > the existence of large, high-profile projects managed by it, which are > really what will convince the crusty neophobe engineers I work with. I agree with you on this expect the fact that git is a lot more complex to get and then is not a pace of development during the learning time. > The upcoming Darcs 2 [2] may very well fix everything. But in the mean > time, the existence of git-hunk-commit --darcs [3] makes daily git usage > approach tolerability, although I do hold my nose. Darcs is a lot more than just having a nice interactive user interface. Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk
