[darcs-users] Re: .darcs is portable

Mark Stosberg mark at summersault.com
Thu Mar 31 23:28:20 UTC 2005


On 2005-03-31, zooko <zooko at yumyum.zooko.com> wrote:
>
> darcs should do things like Subversion does them, unless there is a compelling 
> reason to do it differently.  Obviously, a lot of what darcs does differently 
> than subversion is compellingly better, but naming the meta dir with '_' 
> instead of '.' and having "changes" instead of "log" and "whatsnew" instead of 
> "diff" are not compellingly better, so they should be made the same as 
> subversion in order to maximize adoption of darcs.

This sounds like the idea at that websites should be designed to be
compatible with Internet Explorer, because it's popular right now. 

It's my understanding that CVS is still used much more widely than CVS.
Isn't CVS what SourceForge is using? So why not model CVS instead? Or
Arch? 

Schwern also brought up, but excluded from his summary, that there are
portability problems with ".darcs" on VMS.

It's also valid to consider that we aren't designing darcs from scratch,
so a switch to ".darcs" would really mean support both styles for a long
time, which seems a PITA, and it's own source of confusion. 

    Mark

-- 
http://mark.stosberg.com/ 





More information about the darcs-users mailing list