On 31/03/2010 10:35, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mark Stosberg writes:
> Some may say "I only want to learn one source control system". After
> you've learned git, I can see why you wouldn't want to go through the
> effort to learn another. But darcs is far easier to learn and use.
> ( Just compare the basic "fix a bug" workflow!
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GitForDarcsUsers#Fixabug )
The person who wrote that either decided to add stuff that git can do
cheaply that Darcs makes tedious (explicitly tracking branches in a
DAG), or is rather inexperienced at using git -- the git workflow that
emulates the Darcs workflow would not involve any branching unless a
conflict occurred, and even in that case it would be implicit. Eg,
the explicit diff was completely gratuitous given add -i. And add -i
itself is normally gratuitous for a quick fix; you'd use "git commit
<FILE>".
I'm not saying that you shouldn't recommend Darcs, or that it's not
useful for larger projects. But when advocating Darcs, you should
remember that Darcs lacks some of the features of other VCSes, and
therefore not only supports simpler workflows, but is *restricted* to
simpler workflows. If those workflows are what you need, that's a
good thing. If not, it's not so great. ;-)
I didn't write that page, but just wanted to point out that it's a wiki
- please feel free to edit the page to be more accurate/honest as
appropriate.
In response to your last point though, I'd counter that darcs supports
the cherry-picking workflow that we use in GHC, whereas none of the
other VCs do (or at least, they don't support it well). Moreover, it's
the most natural workflow when you have a stable branch and a
development branch of your software, and you want to pull bugfixes into
the stable branch.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
