[darcs-users] *practical* differences between darcs' patch model and git/mercurial's?

Peter Hercek peter at syncad.com
Sun Oct 21 11:25:37 UTC 2007

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 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 other problem with Mercurial/Git are the limitations when
  partial repository clones are needed. AFAIK Mercurial does
  not have it and Git has some limitations for the partial
  clones (not possible to push back from a partial clone ...
  or something like that). Git UI is bad compared to both
  Mercurial and darcs (possibly not a practical reason though).
  I like the fact that patches which do not conflict are not
  ordered in darcs too.

That said, I switched to Mercurial till darcs gets better with
  its exponential merge problem. I also switched for less practical
  reasons like Mercurial has nicer and more consistent user interface
  (amend-record / whatsnew ... are multiple words separated with
  dash or just concatenated, or what about mv contra all the rest
  commands ... are we using abbreviations in the command names or not).


More information about the darcs-users mailing list