Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200411111856.iABIuFBh098614@xl2.seyza.com>
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
To: wildfire@progsoc.org
In-reply-to: <pan.2004.11.11.13.06.48.566056@progsoc.org> (message from Anand
	Kumria on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:06:48 +1100)
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: 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>
	<1099996596.2900.96.camel@stargate>
	<200411102047.iAAKlUmv093629@xl2.seyza.com>
	<pan.2004.11.11.13.06.48.566056@progsoc.org>
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
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: 1020
Lines: 30

    > From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.org>

    > 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?

That's more or less what just went by in this thread.

-t


_______________________________________________
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/