James Cook writes: > For short-lived branches, I just use one clone per branch. I think this > should work well for long-lived branches too, but I haven't tried.
What's nice about the git storage model is that you can have a "warehouse" repository with dozens of more or less active branches in it, and two or three workspaces (which can even share the commit and content storage of the warehouse, and the warehouse may not even have a workspace). I've never wanted more than 3 workspaces, but when doing release management stuff I've sometimes had as many as 10 active branches I'm worried about in one session. git's storage model makes these workflows fast. Also, in the release manager workflow, I often didn't need file content as such, I needed diffs and merges, and the storage model makes it possible to diff and merge across branches without a checkout (of course for merges the target branch was always checked out, but in theory it didn't need to be!) All of this is obviously quite possible with Darcs. The problem is getting the "accounting" right when separating the management of *sets* of patches from the management of *histories*. IIRC, in Darcs the history is in the patches, which means a bit of tedious surgery on data structures needs to be done. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users