To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com>
	<tnxlldcbqm1.fsf@arm.com> <877jowbl8w.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
	<200411082327.iA8NRVMB084815@xl2.seyza.com>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>
Date: 21 Nov 2004 20:27:00 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200411082327.iA8NRVMB084815@xl2.seyza.com>
Message-ID: <tpoehr9f5n.fsf@helium.pps.jussieu.fr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1219
Lines: 20
> How much experience is there with the merging practices that result
> from that approach?   On first principles I'm highly skeptical of it

I believe that I'm one of the few people who have had an average-
running darcs repository with two parallel branches, so I can answer
that from first-hand experience.

When they work, darcs merges work great.  In my experience, darcs
merges work as well as Arch merges, but they just ``do the right
thing'' without the need for sync-tree and such.  My general feeling
is that Darcs merges are marginally better than Arch merges, which is
much better than CVS or SVN, and should be good enough for anyone.

The problems lie elsewhere.  First, Darcs has no way of keeping merge
history.  More seriously, Darcs gets into serious performance problems
after you've fixed a number of merge conflicts.  I've had to resort to
manually doing star-merge on my Darcs repositories for some time
already, which is a pain.

                                        Juliusz


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/