[darcs-users] Darcs' Direction (from re: GHC and Darcs)

[Trent W. Buck]

"Patrick Waugh" <ptwaugh at gmail.com> writes:

>>> One thing I think would be very helpful to people trying to learn to
>>> use darcs is example work flows.
>>
>> Some of that already exists in the darcs manual and on the darcs
>> wiki, perhaps you should spend a bit more time reading through both
>> of them. But someone could probably write an entire book on the
>> subject or Darcs-based workflows (and there was at least one
>> Wikibooks attempt to do just that).
>
> [...] For your infomation, we read the web site from stem to stern
> several times, and "some of that information" is not adequate.  Hence
> my post.

Please adopt a less inflammatory tone.

It was not clear from your original post that you had already looked at
the manual and wiki and found them inadequate.  Simply stating that in
your original post would have obviated the "arrogant" reply directing
you to them.

>From http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/smart-questions.html (emphasis
added):

    When you ask your question, MENTION HAVING DONE THESE THINGS FIRST;
    this will help establish that you're not being a lazy sponge and
    wasting people's time. Better yet, display what you've learned from
    doing these things. We like answering questions for people who've
    demonstrated they can learn from the answers.

> I've decided we're going with hg, since it is a more mature project
> and can do what we need to do so we can get back to the business of
> creating product and stop playing with tool development.

Currently I use hg at work, on small repos (hundreds to thousands of
patches) with small teams (one to four people).  I'm convinced that any
speed saved by hg being "faster for common operations" was wasted in
developer time

- manually merging conflicts;
- trying to review incoming patches individually; and
- trying to cherry-pick and rollback patches.

Of course, that's merely anecdotal evidence and YMMV.