On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:44:32 +0200, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:33:18AM -0500, Luke Renn wrote: > > Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > > > > >Subversion in the future support makes it worth considering. I don't think > > > > If you haven't already, spend some time with GNU Arch. You might like it. > > I have tried it. Simply put, it's awful. If I were choosing the version > control system now, it would absolutely be darcs, which is wonderful. And I > could (and do) host darcs repositories directly from my own web space as it > doesn't need special server programs and has email commits (quite an > essential feature for this kind of small projects!). But no, at least "tags" > would be lost in converting from Subversion with the current tools without > too much manual intervention as Subversion doesn't have tags, just cheap > copies.
I have to second that opinion. While Arch is conceptually sound in most ways, it is a horribly complex beast to use. The learning curve is far to steep at the moment. I spend most of my time with arch going back to the manual. Where Darcs succeeds is keeping the interface and conceptual model simple so that you can get on with your work. Cheers, g.
