[darcs-users] Re: .darcs is portable

Michael G Schwern schwern at pobox.com
Thu Mar 31 04:46:12 UTC 2005


On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 07:26:51AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> I, too, would prefer .darcs, but:
> 
> On 20050330T211445-0400, zooko wrote:
> > darcs should do things like Subversion does them
> 
> Why?  Why Subversion, exactly?  Why not CVS or Arch?

One can lump CVS and Subversion together, conceptually, as they have 
(deliberately) very similar command sets.  So one can use them fairly
interchangably when talking about a RCS/CVS/SVN style command set.

Why CVS/SVN style over Arch?  Simple, there's a whole generation of
programmers who's only exposure to version control has been CVS.

Arch, OTOH, is new and while it might have a big chunk of mindshare amongst
distributed version control systems (I actually don't know) compared to the
CVS/SVN monster its nothing.





More information about the darcs-users mailing list