Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 10:20, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2004, at 2:08, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > Timothy Webster <address@hidden> writes:
> >> I would like to hear from users who have tried both tla and
> >> darcs. And specifically why I should not go with darcs.

>       It's also very nice that a working directory is effectively a branch 
> from a checked out tree.  This is a very natural concept to branching.  
> I was arguing with a friend about how bad things like CVS break 
> people's mentalities and prevent them from doing better and he gave me 
> some sort of ``9x% of the time all I do is ci and up,'' regarding 
> branching.  I pointed out that in darcs, an ``update'' is a branch 
> integration and there's no way to distinguish the two.  That's one of 
> the nicest things about using it.
> 
>       The branching in general is actually very nice in its simplicity.  
> There are no limits on integrations (that I can tell) short of patch 
> dependencies, and it doesn't require you to think about branching or 
> offline development before you find yourself in a foxhole somewhere 
> without connectivity.

I think that's a good description for the term I made up to mean this,
Lithe Branching (at least what I meant by the term :)

The precise mechanics (duplicate trees, one being the master in the
"archive" or whatever) I think are secondary. I consider techniques that
empower the individual developer to be the primary goal/ benefit.