[emacs-wiki-discuss] Re: Why darcs?

[Sacha Chua]

Chris Beggy <address@hidden> writes:

> I was preparing to move from cvs to arch, based on what I thought
> was your example!  Why now darcs, rather than arch?  I know there
> must be some good reasons.

I'm still considering it. I'm having a hard time migrading my planner
and emacs-wiki repositories because I really, really want to preserve
patch histories, but remember-el had few patches, so it's fine.

I checked out darcs primarily on the recommendation of johnw and
some other people on #emacs.

darcs promises to have patch dependency tracking. I ran into problems
merging patches from planner--dev into planner--stable -- I couldn't
track which patches depended on others, so I ended up hoping my
changelog entries were good enough and redoing patches several times
until they applied cleanly.

darcs also stores all of its metadata in the directory, so I can back
up things easily.

There are a number of things missing from darcs, but I trust that
it'll eventually get hacked in. If not, well, it's a good excuse to
learn Haskell...

tla has warped my brain, though, and I'm having a hard time making the
switch. <sheepish grin> Wrote a tla2darcs migration script to help
ease the pain, but still do planner development under tla.
-- 
Sacha Chua <address@hidden> - Ateneo CS faculty geekette
interests: emacs, gnu/linux, making computer science education fun
http://sacha.free.net.ph/ - PGP Key ID: 0xE7FDF77C