[darcs-users] Making Sense of Revision-control Systems by Bryan O'Sullivan

Florent Becker florent.becker at ens-lyon.org
Fri Sep 4 10:45:54 UTC 2009

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:00:26 -0700, Jason Dagit <dagit at codersbase.com> said:

> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Simon Michael<simon at joyful.com>
> wrote:
>> Yes. A good article, but I can't make sense of the three paragraphs
>> where he talks about darcs.

> It took me a while to read the whole thing, but I've finally
> finished.  What I like about this article is that it tells us what
> are the great features of other vcs.  Which I see as an opportunity
> for inspiration and refinement.

> This paragraph was interesting to me as well: Both Mercurial and Git
> decouple fetching remote changes from merging them with local
> changes. If Bob fetches Alice's revisions, he can still commit his
> changes without needing to merge with hers first.  When he merges
> afterward, he will still have a permanent record of his committed
> changes. If the merge runs into trouble, he will be able to recover
> his earlier work.

[Snip proposed implementation]

I'm not sure what this decoupling means, but it could also be
implemented by having a darcs receive (or fetch, co-send, or dnes)
command, that would be to pull like send is to push. It would let you
select remote patches, then create a patch bundle with them, which you
can then apply whenever you want to. It's one more command, but it's
also one less assymetry in the command set.



More information about the darcs-users mailing list