[darcs-users] About darcs darcs repo as an darcs usage example...
nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 10:30:00 UTC 2009
Excerpts from Petr Rockai's message of Tue Mar 10 10:13:37 +0100 2009:
> every now and then, someone mentions the size of the darcs darcs repo as the
> measure of where darcs scales. I'd like to warn people that before they do
> that, they should mention, that darcs darcs repo is anxiously avoiding any of
> the more troublesome aspects of darcs. Eg. there are very few conflict
> resolutions in darcs darcs repo. We impose a very strict workflow on our
> contributors, which very few projects will be willing to adopt (even in darcs
> itself, there's a fair amount of dissent). Other workflows will result in many
> more conflict resolutions, sometimes in conflict fights and repos of size of
> the darcs repo could wind up unusable due to merging slowness and bugs (we
> tried to branch darcs repo with anything other than minor changes twice, both
> attempts resulting in massive problems with merging and ultimately loss of the
> branch due to its un-usability).
> We should keep our marketing honest. I wouldn't recommend using darcs to any
> medium project (ie. more than a couple hundred patches and a single, at most
> two contributors) without a darcs expert on board. At least not until the core
> is either rewritten or debugged. To put it simply, while darcs is smart, it's
> not reliable, and in an RCS, that's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
On the other end, people that follow the strict workflow of avoiding conflicts
as much as possible, can reasonably have a repo of the size of darcs itself.
The only long-term restriction is to have only short-lived branches of the
synchronized trunk. So I would say that depending on how you treat conflicts,
darcs may scale from small projects (as you've described) to medium projects
(as darcs itself).
All the best,
More information about the darcs-users