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

[Dustin Sallings]

On Nov 11, 2004, at 9:10, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> John Goerzen wrote:
> > Here are the plusses for Darcs over tla in my mind:
>
> > 2. Every checkout gives you a repository.  *Excellent* for offline
> > hacking for laptop users.  This is a great way to work.
>
> Hmm.  I wonder if there might be even better ways to support this use 
> case in Arch.
>
> Is it the repository that's useful or the fact that you can commit?  
> It certainly seems conceivable to have a commit-style command that 
> would transparently create a local version of the upstream branch in 
> your archive on the first commit.

	For me, it is the ability to commit freely offline.  Like arch, the 
concept of commit and merge are distinct in darcs, but there's a subtle 
difference.  If you check out a tree, you are always branching.  When 
you want your changes to go back into the tree from which you branched, 
you that's a separate process.

	That is to say, there is no checkout without a local branch.  That'd 
be expensive in arch, I'd think, since you'd have to have an archive 
set up to perform the branch before ever checking anything out, and 
you'd have to go through that thing.  It'd also have a negative effect 
on the way history is viewed, since you'd only see changes from your 
branch when doing normal log related operations (tla logs, etc...).

	Of course, having your ``commit-style'' command might be a useful 
compromise, especially of the merge were still as easy as a darcs push 
or pull.

--
Dustin Sallings