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