> We've been using darcs for nearly 2 years now, I feel it's time for a > retrospective and to think seriously about whether darcs is still the best > option to continue with...
Simon, Your post about darcs was so thoughtful that I have almost nothing to add. I did learn a bit about distributed revision control from an interesting blog post and followups at http://tinyurl.com/2wktoq. I would love to stay with darcs if it were faster and actually worked. I don't see either of those things actually happening in the next five years. I don't think there are enough good people working on the underlying theory, the algorithms, or the code base. One (rather snotty) way to state my opinion is this: I'll start to believe in darcs's promises again once I see a POPL paper on the semantics. git seems quite promising, primarily because it has the full power of the linux kernel mafia behind it. It's fast, it has staying power, and it will not be allowed to stay broken. I've read that the primary disadvantage is that that it's very much optimized for a 'single integrator' model, but for GHC that might be workable---I'm not sure I know what the comment really means. I'm no friend of darcs, but I would find it reasonable to continue to limp along with darcs for another year or two in the hope that the design space clarifies itself. Or maybe we could persuade Benjamin Pierce that distributed version control is every bit as interesting as file synchronization, and in a year or two we'd have a tool with a real semantics :-) Norman _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
