[darcs-users] *practical* differences between darcs' patch model and git/mercurial's?
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Sun Oct 21 20:46:41 UTC 2007
* Stephane Bortzmeyer:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 12:46:34AM -0700,
> Adam Megacz <megacz at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote
> a message of 33 lines which said:
>> with git or mercurial, even a "passive" developer who pulls these
>> two patches will need to add an additional content-free patch to
>> merge them.
> I regard this as a huge practical problem and this is the main reason
> why I hate Mercurial.
The flipside is that the darcs approach means that you cannot easily
reproduce intermediate tree states, which makes me feel somewhat
There's also the issue that darcs' cherry-picking is not universal. If
it works, it's great, if it doesn't (you cannot commute the
patch-to-be-picked past something you don't want), you may need to do
major history surgery or create a patch from scratch, as in other
systems (but if I'm not mistaken, such duplication tends to cause darcs
to run into the exponential trap).
More information about the darcs-users