[darcs-users] Why Bitkeeper still wins [was: Bitkeeper and Eclipse...]

Juliusz Chroboczek Juliusz.Chroboczek at pps.jussieu.fr
Sun Mar 20 19:45:38 UTC 2005

> Even if you can not use bk, you can read their docs. (-:

I have, but it's just not the same thing as being able to play with a
live piece of software.  Your description is just what we need.

> We had a scripted system which [...]

If I'm following your description: you need pre-commit and post-commit
hooks, with the post-commit hook being able to find out if there was a
merge conflict.  Anything I'm missing?

(Interesting stuff about GUI issues snipped.)

> Because of the large amount of history, deleted files, etc. clones
> are slow and large. bk until recently did not have a good way to cut
> off this detritus.

> [...]

> darcs *MUST* have a way to clean out the revision tree. There should
> be a way to get rid of 4 year old garbage. 

Yes, that is a serious weakness in Darcs: there's currently no way to
do what Arch calls ``log pruning''.  Doing that in Darcs without
breaking future merges would require some additional metadata -- some
notion of ``patch equivalence''.  (I guess David would speak of a
congruence over the patch algebra, but ``additional metadata'' will do
for now ;-)

> All is not roses with bk. But it is the only system I have seen keep
> up with the pain we put it through.

They have done some good work.

> subversion looks like it is getting close

Ahem...  Everything is much, much easier in a centralised universe.
Arch and Darcs are currently the only hopes of the Free World.

Thanks for your help, Sean,


More information about the darcs-users mailing list