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

[Thomas Lord]

    > From: Catalin Marinas <address@hidden>

    > > I opened my mind for this darcs thread and it looks like I'm going to
    > > wind up where I started:  they have some rather esoteric merge
    > > technology that could be added to arch;

    > Maybe time will tell if this merge technology brings many benefits. I
    > can think of cases where it is unsafe (see the beginning of this
    > message). On the other hand, darcs can notify you that the patch
    > actually depends on a different patch and can pull both at a time. Arch
    > could track this but it is time consuming with the actual structure of a
    > changeset (the log or other file should have some information about the
    > files modified and the corresponding line numbers, without the actual
    > data added/removed). It could use the revision library as well but it
    > still means retrieving all the patches to create the full history in a
    > revlib. Anyway, darcs is not so good at this since it loads all the
    > patches into memory.


Just incidentally: if I did want to spend a lot of time thinking about
how to move darcs merge operator to arch i would spend at least part
of that time thinking about mappings in which darcs changesets map
onto arch versions, not arch revisions.

-t