Simon Marlow writes: > 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.
I'd need to know a lot more about the goals of the GHC workflow to improve accuracy, though. If the history DAG actually matters to GHC devs, then Darcs doesn't support that aspect very well, and I'd say that the simplicity of the Darcs workflow comes at the cost of incompletely supporting GHC's ideal. OTOH, if the DAG doesn't matter at all, then a Mercurial-style "pull; hack; commit; while ! push; pull; resolve conflicts; done" workflow can be achieved in git in many fewer commands. And of course, those are extremes, there are plenty more possibilities in between. > 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). I'd be interested to hear an explanation of the motivation of the workflow. All of the major VCSes claim to support cherry-picking, and by their designers' lights I see no reason to think they don't do it well. I can easily imagine that many who like git would dislike Darcs and vice-versa, and that it would depend a lot on what you mean by "support well". _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
