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

[John A Meinel]

Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2004-11-17, John A Meinel <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > But really for windows what you want is a gui.
>
>
> Why? At least 'darcs for windows' is really a DOS application from what
> I've seen. The target audience is still programmers, who should be less
> fearful of the command line.  
>
> I suppose GUIs are more a part of Windows culture than Linux, if that's
> what you are implying. 

I was arguing 3 things:

1) tla will run under cygwin, so there is a windows version available.
2) cmd.exe isn't a great shell, so depending on cygwin is okay. They
   actually made it quite a bit better than command.com, but bash is
   still far better.
3) the general windows philosophy is to use gui's for things.

The main 2 reasons tla doesn't run on windows is that it had a tendency 
to abuse path names (make them too long) this is what I work on. The 
second is that it is written as a POSIX application, and windows isn't 
generally posix compliant. (They use file handles instead of small 
integers, for instance.)

> > I can't say why this would be hard with darcs. Though I know last I 
> > checked they didn't have pre/post commit hooks, or other such goodies 
> > which also let you nice things.
>
>
> pre and post hooks were discussed recently as a feature that darcs users
> and the author have an interest in. I wouldn't be surprised if they
> appear in the short term. 
>
>     Mark

That will be nice to see. I do still wonder why it would be so difficult 
to get darcs to incorporate patch signing. I'm curious how darcs stores 
things on the filesystem.

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature