[darcs-users] Re: More on version management...

Keith Wansbrough Keith.Wansbrough at cl.cam.ac.uk
Wed Mar 24 10:00:23 UTC 2004

> | Darcs is not intended to maintain a history of versions, although it is
> | possible to kludge together such a revision history [...]
> ...which seems to be the thing you're wanting to do here.
> Thus you might be using the wrong tool. Don't get me wrong, I think darcs is
> a wonderful program, but it's strengths are (IMHO) its decentralized nature[1]
> and the ability to selectvely get some specific changes from a remote repo
> ("cherry picking"). I don't imagine either is particularly useful in the
> context of standards authoring.
> If you want just CVS without the flaws, try Subversion.
> If you actually have a lot of code with a standards document embedded, then
> we might have a problem ;-)

I'm not using darcs at the moment, I'm using CVS.  I'm just curious as
to what the alternatives are.

The problems we are hitting are all the usual ones (renaming, moving,
change sets rather than just file changes) that are addressed (I
believe) by Subversion, but also a few others that are not.  We want a
decentralised system, because we have collaborators distributed around
the world, and we sometimes work while disconnected.  Furthermore, at
present we have multiple repositories, some hosted locally and some
hosted at other sites.  We would much rather have a single repository
(so we can share common programs/documents, and so we can move things
from one place ot another), but be able to control access on a
per-directory basis rather than per-repository.

Darcs certainly seems interesting, but you're right, I don't think
it's for us. :-(

--KW 8-)

More information about the darcs-users mailing list