Source code control

[Adam Megacz]

ebiederman at lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> As for features at least as of tla 1.1 I do not believe this to
> be the case.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

Which features do you find present in tla that you do not see in darcs?


> It was mentioned in some of your discussion that darcs uses reverse
> format patches.  I am leary of that because it was exactly that
> ``optimization'' in RCS which made CVS suck at branches.

Well, I certainly agree that RCS/CVS is awful, and I'm sure that its
patch format plays some part in this, but I do not see how that
extrapolates to darcs.  Have you read the Theory Of Patches?


> For myself I am branch happy.

Me too!  I love branches.  The hard part is getting people who don't
normally use them to start using them.  When they can think of each
branch as a separate checkout/repo[*] I find that novices pick up the
concept of branching almost instantly.

[*] There is no difference between a darcs workspace and repository;
    every workspace is implicitly a fully-functional repository from
    which you can take checkouts; in fact, this is exactly how you
    make a branch.

> And I don't think I like the idea of having to create another copy
> of a repository to have a branch.

Why?  Hardlinks eliminate the space concerns in most cases, and in the
rest, well, disk is cheap, and human time sure isn't ;)

  - a