On 28/04/2011 03:21 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 08:04 +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
There's also the fact that using in-repo branches means that all the
tooling doesn't have to rely on any (fs-specific) conventions for
finding branches.
As someone who has admin'd a reasonably large Bazaar setup (where
branch
== directory similarly to Darcs) I can honestly say that this would be
a
HUGE boon.
Just keep in mind that adding branches withing the repository is a
massive increase in the conceptual complexity of the system, and it
would IMO be very un-darcs-like to adopt something like that into the
core mental model you need to use a darcs repository, only because of
incidental conveniences
Convention, rather than baking answers into tools, is the right way to
solve organizational problems, and that's essentially what we're talking
about here. And adding complexity every time someone has an awkward use
case will lead (has led, in more systems than I can count) to an
unusable result in the end.
It seems half the people here think that having multiple branches per
repo is a fantastic idea, while the other half think it's a stupid idea.
Perhaps there is room for more than one revision control system based on
change-sets in this world?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
