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

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 02:12:21PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> A agree, it does seem that darcs wins in simplicity, sort of. The thing 
> is it doesn't let you do the things that arch lets you.  For instance
> 
> 1) How do you tell darcs that you want the most recent version of the 
> source tree, with the current modifications then applied (meaning the 
> archive is more important than my changes. This updates to the latest 
> archive version, and then applies my changes.)
> 
>    tla update

No direct equivolent here (see darcs pull), but otoh, I can never think
of an instance where tla update has been better for me than tla replay,
and also can't really think of one where it would be.

> 2) How do you state that my changes are more important. (This applies 
> each missing patch until one fails.)
> 
>    tla replay

darcs pull

> 3) How do you say. Well, I've done all these changes on a branch, and 
> now I'm ready to commit it to the main branch as one logical merge.
> 
>    tla star-merge

darcs pull

> 4) Each change I just did should be entered into the main branch as an 
> individual change set.
> 
>    tla pure-merge (theoretical)

darcs push

> I realize tla is not very simple, but some of that is because it lets 
> you do complicated things. I completely agree with you that the basic 

I'm not sure tla really permits things that darcs dosen't.  Can you give
an example?

> having darcs take 1 hour to commit a change is plenty of time for me to 
> figure out what the difference is between update/replay, and then I 
> don't have to worry about it again.

To make it clear, that is a bug in darcs that needs to be fixed.

-- John