To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:26:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Complete.Org
Message-ID: <slrncp74m0.ftv.jgoerzen@christoph.complete.org>
References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian)
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] 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: 1483
Lines: 34
On 2004-11-08, Timothy Webster <timw@outblaze.com> wrote:
> After spending some time investigating darcs. 
> I must say, I like the simplicity of its interface and design.
> However I am concerned about "problems" related to async patch
> updates is still an ongoing development with lots of discussion.

I've tried both.

Here are the plusses for Darcs over tla in my mind:

1. Far less typing at the keyboard.  Darcs commands are shorter, don't
require huge amounts of typing long archive strings, etc.  This means I
work faster.

2. Every checkout gives you a repository.  *Excellent* for offline
hacking for laptop users.  This is a great way to work.

3. Merges are even nicer than with tla.

Here are the minuses for Darcs right now:

1. Certain situations, even trivial ones, give it a fit.  I reported a
bug about it spinlocking one time.  The answer from the author,
paraphrased, was "It didn't spinlock.  It would finish in an hour or
two.  It's tough.  I know about it."  That was about a 5k patch in a
100k tree.

2. For storing files on a server, the only supported method is ssh with
to a machine that has darcs installed.

#2 doesn't bother me.  #1 does.  I'm staying with Arch until it's fixed,
but once it is, I'm likely moving to darcs.

-- John


_______________________________________________
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/