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

[Florent Becker]

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.

FWIW,

Florent