[darcs-users] Re: questions on development process

[Martin Pool]

On  8 Aug 2004, "Eric S. Johansson" <esj at harvee.org> wrote:

> maybe this is a bad attitude but I feel that but files should not go 
> into a repository unless they are fully functional.  I think this comes 
> from my experience in working with groups were too many times my work 
> has been halted by the fact that somebody checked-in broken code.
> 
> this means that usually I have a fairly substantial body of work in the 
> "work in progress" files around the repository.  So it sounds like to me 
> that my better option is the unison bidirectional synchronization.  That 
> way I also get copies of files I haven't checked in yet and may never 
> want to.

Darcs' ability to unrecord/unpull patches give you a bit more
flexibility here.  I like being able to record some work-in-progress
knowing that I can revisit it before sharing it with other people.
Obviously you should not commit stuff that's just completely
incorrect.

Even when people try hard to commit only working code, I often see
commits like "*really* fix bug 1234" because the original change
didn't do it.  Much better to be able to unrecord and rerecord the
correct fix.

Having said that Unison is just great, but I think Darcs makes it less
necessary.

-- 
Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20040809/cab4e4c2/attachment.pgp