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

[John A Meinel]

Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > 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 not sure it would be be. 
>
>
> > I'm curious how darcs stores things on the filesystem.
>
>
> Darcs keeps everything in one tidy "_darcs" directory at the top level.
> I appreciate that there aren't extra meta-data directories throughout
> the tree.

I believe the reason tla put .arch-ids everywhere is so that you can mv 
a directory, and have it perfectly recorded. You don't need to use tla mv.

I assume darcs requires darcs mv, darcs rm, and darcs add to make things 
work right. With tagline tla, I just put the files in place and I can 
commit.

There is a whole discussion going on the dev list about whether this is 
the "right" behaviour. Mikhael Goikhman thoroughly dislikes it. He likes 
to work on code in the working directory without checking it in yet.

Personally, as soon as anything gets close to my working directory I 
want it checked in. So I really like the behavior. I like that I can do 
whatever I want to my tree, and normally tla is fine. There are a couple 
of edge cases where people state "I want a tool that works 100% of the 
time, rather than 95%". I feel tagline works 95% and is very easy to 
use, the other 5% is pretty easy to fix up when it happens. Overall, I 
feel I spend much less time than if I had to use 'tla mv' all the time. 
Renaming/moving is pretty nice with a gui browser.

You could easily store all the meta information in {arch}, I actually 
prefer it out where other commands work.

> You can browse a "_darcs" directory of a small project here to obverse
> the structure:
>
> http://mark.stosberg.com/darcs_hive/cgi-app/_darcs/
>
> Darcs does ship with a web-based repo browser that provides a much nicer
> UI for web browsing than the above, which hides storage implementation:
>
> http://abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/darcs.cgi/darcs/
>
> This tool is written in Perl rather than Haskell. :)
>
>     Mark

I do think _darcs is nice and clean. I'm curious why _darcs instead of 
.darcs. Someone mentioned that the directory gets ignored, but ls * 
still finds it.

I'm playing with darcs a little, unfortunately I chose the pathological 
case of the linux kernel tree, which causes all kinds of problems. :) 
(darcs get needs 680MB, and about 20 minutes to run.) darcs changes took 
a really long time and then let me know I didn't set the runtime memory 
high enough.

But I'm honestly willing to play around with it on a smaller scale. I 
didn't find darcs own repository, though. There was a link on the main 
page for the linux kernel, but I didn't see one for darcs itself.

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature