> Not to revisit the exciting discussions of the summer, but in general, > I've found darcs much easier to think about. I maintain several large > projects in darcs, albeit with only a few developers each, and only > occasionally have problems due to darcs itself.
The hg queue (which I think confused you most) is basically dead. It's a nuisance to review and change patches of patches. What differences between darcs and hg are problematic for you? > However, here we are. I think the mercurial/bitbucket problems would > go away if the lead developers essentially documented and enforced a > simple, standard process for mainline and concurrent development > models that was a clean, easy to think about, subset of what hg can > do. > I would appreciate that and would be likely to contribute some > more work if that were the case. I suppose deprecating Mercurial queues is an important step in that direction. Maintaining CVS-like branches is awkward, so the only practically feasible model that is also well-supported by Bitbucket are full clones (i.e. branching by cloning). Perhaps Stephen can contribute something here, too. > Perhaps those wizards who got us into this should volunteer to do all > the integrations! :) In fact I'm doing almost all of it right now... Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
