|
6
by mbp at sourcefrog
import all docs from arch |
1 |
Darcs compared to Arch |
2 |
====================== |
|
3 |
||
4 |
Simpler to use; perhaps harder to completely understand. |
|
5 |
||
6 |
Always local; always fast. |
|
7 |
||
8 |
Patch commution is slow and perhaps doesn't clearly do what people |
|
9 |
want. |
|
10 |
||
11 |
Too slow! |
|
12 |
||
13 |
Can't reliably get back to any previous point. Explicitly not |
|
14 |
addressing source archive/librarian function. |
|
15 |
||
16 |
Loads everything into memory. |
|
17 |
||
18 |
Written in Haskell. |
|
19 |
||
20 |
Breaking commits into hunks at commit time is interesting, but I think |
|
21 |
not totally necessary. Sometimes it won't break hunks where you want |
|
22 |
it. |
|
23 |
||
24 |
A really simple pre-commit check hook is remarkably useful. |
|
25 |
||
26 |
http://www.scannedinavian.org/DarcsWiki/DifferencesFromArch |
|
27 |
||
28 |
Token replace |
|
29 |
------------- |
|
30 |
||
31 |
Very cute; possibly handy; not absolutely necessary in most places. |
|
32 |
Somewhat limited by the requirement that it be reversible. |
|
33 |
||
34 |
This is one of very few cases where it does seem necessary that we |
|
35 |
store deltas, rather than tree states. But that seems to cause other |
|
36 |
problems in terms of being able to reliably sign revisions. |
|
37 |
||
38 |
This can perhaps be inferred by a smart 3-way merge tool. Certainly |
|
39 |
you could have it do sub-line merges. |