To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:06:48 +1100
Message-ID: <pan.2004.11.11.13.06.48.566056@progsoc.org>
References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com>
	<tnxlldcbqm1.fsf@arm.com>
	<877jowbl8w.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
	<200411082327.iA8NRVMB084815@xl2.seyza.com>
	<1099996596.2900.96.camel@stargate>
	<200411102047.iAAKlUmv093629@xl2.seyza.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux))
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: darcs vs tla
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: 868
Lines: 16
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:47:30 -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:

> I opened my mind for this darcs thread and it looks like I'm going to wind
> up where I started:  they have some rather esoteric merge technology that
> could be added to arch;  aside from that, they are missing too much.  
> Would have been better if darcs had, in the first place, been done as an
> extension to arch.   Meanwhile, their novel merge tech is "on the list of
> things todo" but not a high priority.
> 
> (Does that sound insulting towards Darcs?   It doesn't at all if you
> regard darcs as a short-term R&D exploration.)

Time for 'a diagnosing darcs', then?

Cheers,
Anand


_______________________________________________
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/