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

[John A Meinel]

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 02:12:21PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:

[...]

> > 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.

I've done some changes, found out someone else might have done something 
similar, etc. I generally use replay myself. You could fake an update 
with 'tla undo; tla replay; tla redo' that's basically what it does, 
only I think it is *slightly* smarter.

> > 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

My understanding was that this pulls each change as a separate entity. 
Does it make a record such that all the changes can be easily pulled in 
later?

By your response darcs push records each one individually, and darcs 
pull records a meta patch.

> > 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.

Is this explicitly a bug, or is it something where because of it's basic 
patch-algebra design it is stuck with this.

> -- John

I also happen to prefer having a semi-centralized repository, because 
then if I wipe my working dir, I know I haven't lost anything.

I'm guessing baz could probably make things about as simple as darcs, 
though. With the caveat that you have to be aware of a repository versus 
just working trees.

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature