[darcs-users] darcs & git

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

Gour:

>> I do intend to fix Git support in Darcs.  It's a rather big job,
>> though -- the way we convert Git branches into Darcs branches is
>> broken by design, and David has explained to me how to do it right at
>> last FOSDEM.

> Is it actually worth to do the job then?

Yes.  Unlike many other jobs that we may be doing on Darcs, this one
has intrinsic interest for me -- it's something I want to do for the
sheer intellectual enjoyment of doing it, whether it's something that
our users actually want or not.  As far as I know, providing reliable
two-way sync between separately developed distributed RCSs qualifies
as original research.

Please indulge an old man, and allow him to get his pleasure where he
can ;-)

>> there are no less than 17 commands related to merging in Git).

> Only? :-(

Yes, it's only 17 commands out of 116.

> Maybe you should consider helping darcs to scale even better and drop
> git support so that darcs can be viable alternative for kernel-size
> repos?

Let's give up that kernel fetishism.

There used to be exactly two repositories with over 1'000'000 lines of
code in the Free Software world, the Linux kernel and XFree86.  Now
that XFree86 is dead, and X.Org have done the reasonable thing and
split their repository into pieces, there's only one left.  How much
development effort should we be spending on a single repository whose
developers are happy with their current tools anyway?

A more reasonable size is that of Ghc, and that's something we should
care about more than we do:

  http://bugs.darcs.net/issue?%40search_text=simonpj
  http://bugs.darcs.net/issue?%40search_text=simonmar


                                        Juliusz