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

[Dustin Sallings]

On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:31, John A Meinel wrote:

> Is that very difficult compared with what you do in darcs? Yes, tla 
> doesn't have this built-in, but it is pretty easy to layer this 
> functionality on top. And if you convince Tom, you probably could get 
> a 'tla pure-merge' command that would do the same thing.

	This is getting more confusing, though.  I already have to use errors 
to tell me which of update or replay or star-merge is the right way to 
apply changes between trees.  pure-merge doesn't seem any more 
descriptive or obvious than star-merge.

	If darcs wins here because of simplicity, adding complexity doesn't 
seem to be going in the right direction.

	I think that's really the point.  darcs has a command to save a 
changeset in the working tree, and then a few commands for moving 
changes between trees.  The changes are mostly based on *how* you're 
moving changes and not so much why or how the tree was branched or 
whatever.  I.e.:

	push - push changes from here to another tree (defaults to the tree 
from which I branched)
	pull - pull changes from another tree (defaults to the tree from which 
I branched)
	send - asynchronously send changes to another tree (i.e. I email 
patches to a machine)

	I typically use replay when updating source trees because someone told 
me it was a good idea a long time ago and it seems far faster than 
update when it works.  I tend to use star merge when integrating 
branches, but I've had that fail in such a way that I had to undo and 
use replay.

	There was a comment earlier about how you have to understand darcs' 
concepts of patch theory to use it properly, but it seems to me that 
arch requires way more understanding than darcs does for normal use.

--
Dustin Sallings