[darcs-users] Re: .darcs is portable

Michael G Schwern schwern at pobox.com
Thu Mar 31 23:37:08 UTC 2005

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:30:47PM +0000, Aaron Denney wrote:
> On 2005-03-31, Michael G Schwern <schwern at pobox.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> And since CVS doesn't hide it's metadir "CVS", we shouldn't hide our
> metadir "_darcs".

CVS got a lot of things wrong.  Having user-visible CVS directories all
over the place was one of them.  Subversion fixed this... sort of.  Now
they have *hidden* directories scattered all over the place.

There were no user-servicable parts inside a CVS directory.  So there was 
no reason for it to be visible.  There's no user-servicable parts inside
a .svn directory so there's good reason for it to be invisible.  There are
user-servicable parts inside a _darcs directory.  Hmmm.

SVN puts a .svn directory in every directory of the checkout.  Since its all
over the place its good to be invisible.  darcs only puts its administrative 
directory at the top level.  Hmmm.

I think I just swung myself over to the _darcs camp.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list